Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o 'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH WATERWAYS (NO. 2) BILL[Lords]

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time tomorrow.

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (BECKTON) BILL

Order for consideration read.

To be considered tomorrow.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (NO. 2) BILL(By Order)

Order for consideration read.

To be considered tomorrow.

HARWICH HARBOUR BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

NATO (Conventional Stability Talks)

Mr. Harry Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Defence Ministers have had concerning a mandate for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation negotiators at the forthcoming conventional stability talks.

Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Defence Ministers have had concerning a mandate for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation negotiators at the forthcoming conventional stability talks.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): NATO Heads of State and Government set out their approach to conventional arms control at their summit on 2 March this year. We have regular discussions with our NATO partners concerning the translation of this overall approach into NATO proposals for tabling at the conventional stability talks which we hope will begin later this year.

Mr. Ewing: I congratulate the Secretary of State on holding on to his job yesterday when all around were losing theirs. Is he aware that that is the second narrow escape that he has had in the past 12 months?
Will the Secretary of State now finally accept the need for demilitarised zones as a contribution towards preserving world peace and reducing the risks of war? Is he aware that, in the next decade, the West German armed conscript forces will be reduced by 40 per cent. because of demographic changes? Against that background, is it not now vital that we establish demilitarised zones and negotiate for extensive disarmament in conventional weapons?

Mr. Younger: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are pursuing disarmament most vigorously and, unlike all their predecessors, are achieving successful results in doing so. We are taking an active role in working out a mandate for the conventional disarmament talks. It is on our text that the discussion is now taking place. I cannot share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for demilitarised zones. They are wholly unenforceable and, therefore, not something that we should approach.

Mr. Marshall: Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether the European Community's Foreign Ministers have welcomed Mr. Gorbachev's suggestion of a pan-European summit to reduce conventional forces in Europe? Is it only the Governments refusal to include in the talks dual-capable weapons that is standing in the way of NATO's mandate and of an agreement?

Mr. Younger: No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The preparations for the talks are going well. Discussions are proceeding principally on the text of the Western proposals. As the hon. Gentleman probably


knows, the inclusion of dual-capable systems will depend on whether their conventional role is applicable to the talks. That is not an obstacle to proceeding.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: As the European pillar of the NATO Alliance, does my right hon. Friend envisage any part being played by the Western European Union?

Mr. Younger: Yes. As my hon. Friend knows, we are now in the chair of the Western European Union and, in the course of our year's chairmanship, we shall encourage the WEU to make a contribution towards strengthening the European pillar of the Alliance and forwarding the disarmament talks.

Mr. Forman: Is there any hard evidence available to my right hon. Friend and to his NATO Defence Minister colleagues that, as a consequence of the internal changes that are in train in the Soviet Union, the Soviet Government are now more amenable than they have been over the years to appropriate reductions in conventional weapons on each side?

Mr. Younger: The new atmosphere in Moscow is more conducive that the previous atmosphere to achieving reductions in weapons, including conventional weapons. However, I am afraid that at this stage there is no sign of any reduction, or even easing, in the growth of military expenditure in the Soviet Union. We hope to see that, but there is no evidence of it yet.

Mr. O'Neill: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is a sad day when the French and German Foreign Ministers are prepared to accept the need for conventional cuts of the kind that have been suggested, but the British Government are not willing to enter into the spirit of the new hopes that many have for relations with the Soviet Union? Therefore, will the Secretary of State explain to the Foreign Secretary that there is scope for European initiatives as well as NATO initiatives on conventional talks and conventional cuts?

Mr. Younger: There is scope for ideas and initiatives from anyone involved in these processes, but it would be extremely disruptive of the opportunity to make progress in the talks if we were to start separate talks on other bases at the same time as we prepare for these major and important talks.

Spare Parts (Labelling)

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evidence he has on the effect on prices charged of his Department's policy of requiring suppliers to stick a two-tier price label on packages of spare parts; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): Last year the Department introduced the requirement for spares to be price-labelled. This initiative is part of the Ministry's drive to ensure value for money in defence procurement. Price labelling will provide a further check against possible overcharging for spares by contractors and improve cost awareness among our personnel. It is much too early to quantify the benefits that will be obtained.

Mr. Riddick: Is my hon. Friend aware that in practice in some cases the labelling requirement is resulting in

higher prices being quoted to the Ministry of Defence? Is he aware that a company of my acquaintance made two quotes, one without the labelling requirement and one with the labelling requirement at a 5 per cent. premium, and the MOD contracts office accepted the higher price? Is there not a case for introducing greater flexibility into the system?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am sure my hon. Friend will understand that adding a small additional piece of information to a label that is already required is likely to result in a negligible increase in cost in the vast majority of cases. If particular difficulties are associated with one product, we are prepared to discuss that with the supplier, but, overall, we see major benefits which would greatly exceed the small extra cost of putting that information on the label.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: That is not the only anomaly in the Ministry of Defence's procurement policy. Is the Minister aware that his Department told the Public Accounts Committee that it
sought to avoid getting into a situation where one"——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not quote. Paraphrase, please.

Mr. Brown: Is the Minister aware that his Department told the Public Accounts Committee that it sought to avoid a situation where one contractor was supplying all the frigate procurement package in order to make long-term savings and then went on to place the entirety of the frigate procurement package with one yard in direct contradiction to what was said to the Public Accounts Committee? How does the Minister account for that?

Mr. Sainsbury: We have capable frigates on order, and I scarcely think that they fall into the category of spares.

Mr. Page: Price labelling will help to give value for money on the £2 billion-plus spares order for military equipment and prevent scandals such as occurred in the United States with the $1,200 ashtray and the $1,500 toilet seat, but does my hon. Friend agree that more could be saved by avoiding small uneconomic batch ordering and looking more closely at the quantities that are being ordered?

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend has a good point. We are looking at the size and frequency of each order, but, as he is clearly aware, there is a large spend on spares—over £2 billion—and we must ensure that we avoid the sorts of instances that have been reported from the United States, where, to give another example, a list of stores contained what was called a multi-directional impact device priced at $400, which, on closer examination, turned out to be a hammer.

Royal Dockyards

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, in the light of the projected redundancies at Devonport and Rosyth, he will reconsider the balance between the core programme and unallocated work for the royal dockyards.

Mr. Ray Powell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, in the light of the projected redundancies at


Devonport and Rosyth, he will reconsider the balance between the core programme and unallocated work for the royal dockyards.

Mr. Sainsbury: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will answer questions Nos. 4 and 11 together.
The balance between the core and unallocated programmes is kept under regular review.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that since privatisation it has been proved that the Government gave incorrect information at that time? Has not half the work force been destroyed in job terms since privatisation, and is it not a fact that another 1,500 jobs are in jeopardy at the Portsmouth repair yard? Will the Government reconsider the question of allocation and look at the situation again in order to safeguard the remaining jobs?

Mr. Sainsbury: I totally reject the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we gave inaccurate information. We gave the information on job losses that was available to us at the time. The level of employment in the dockyard is a matter for DML. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should suggest that we re-examine the balance between the core and unallocated programmes, because about two dozen firms throughout the country benefit from the jobs provided by the unallocated programme. It would be totally inappropriate and destructive of our urge to seek greater competition to deprive them of the opportunity of tendering for that part of the work that is in the unallocated programme.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister mentioned question No. 11, but I believe that he meant question No. 10.

Mr. Powell: Have not the Government's assurances to the Devonport workers before privatisation proved to be more useless than a bent penny? They were promised 60 per cent. of the core naval refit and repair programme, but that work has since been slashed. Will the Government give an assurance that the cuts made to the naval refit programme will be reviewed and that some jobs will be saved?

Mr. Sainsbury: I apologise to the House, Mr. Speaker. We have had rather a large number of changes in questions. I should have referred to question No. 10.
It was known at the time of the contractorisation tender that we were maintaining a core programme to give a base work load for the new contractors. The royal dockyards, DML and BTL have an opportunity to tender for the work that is in the unallocated programme. As I have already said, it would be totally wrong to take that work back into the core programme and deprive a large number of other ship repair yards of the opportunity of obtaining work from the Ministry of Defence.

Mr. Robert Hicks: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is still genuine anxiety locally about dockyard capability to respond in an emergency? If he is not prepared to increase the core programme, will he consider lifting the artificial restraint placed on the dockyards in respect of the allocated work?

Mr. Sainsbury: I appreciate that there is concern in my hon. Friend's constituency about the dockyard's work load. As I have said previously, we keep under review the ship repair industry's total capacity, which covers not only the royal dockyards but the private sector as well. One of

the factors taken into account is the opportunity in an emergency to transfer workers from refitting to repair work, because that could provide a considerable surge capacity. In those circumstances, we are confident that there is sufficient capacity in the dockyards to meet any crisis.

Mr. Brazier: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the purpose of offering all that repair work for tender is to obtain the best possible value for money for the Royal Navy rather than to provide local jobs in any particular area? Will he further confirm that the remaining core programme for Devonport is of a size and scope that almost any other naval repair facility in Europe would greatly envy?

Mr. Sainsbury: We have a substantial capacity in both the former royal dockyards and in the private sector, which we believe is sufficient to meet the Royal Navy's needs and to ensure that its ships are maintained to the usual high standards.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister review what he has been saying to the House, in the light of the evidence given to the Public Accounts Committee and to the Select Committee on Defence about the rate of redundancies at Devonport and Rosyth? Will he confirm that the rate of redundancies at Devonport is far in excess of what was anticipated, and that the crux of the matter is that the core programme has been diminished and the dockyard at Devonport has not found itself capable of obtaining additional work? We are finding it difficult to keep up an adequate repair and maintenance service in the Navy. Will he come clean on the issue?

Mr. Sainsbury: I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that we are confident that we have an adequate ship repair capacity throughout the country in both the public and the private sectors. We have ample capacity to meet any surge of demand in a crisis, for the reasons that I have already advanced.
There has indeed been a more rapid rate of job loss than originally anticipated. We have discussed the matter in the House. The reasons include the lower maintenance needs of modern ships, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware. The total naval work load has been reduced, and that has been reflected in a more rapid reduction in the number of jobs available at Devonport than was first envisaged.

Challenger Tank (Replacement)

Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to decide on a replacement for the Challenger tank; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Younger: The Challenger tank entered service in 1984, and deliveries to equip a total of seven regiments will not be completed until the end of the decade. We have no plans at present to replace Challenger.

Mr. Fatchett: We seem to go through this process of questioning every month. At the Vickers factory in Leeds there appears to be an unfortunate hiatus in orders for the new Challenger tanks and in their development. If an order is not placed before long, 700 jobs will be lost at the factory. Is the Secretary of State at all concerned about the potential loss of jobs in Leeds, or is he happy to allow the order to go to its German and American counterparts?

Mr. Younger: There is no question of that at present. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are considering whether we can replace the Chieftain tank and, if so, with what tank we should replace it. We hope that there will be competition and that the Leeds factory will feel able to put in a competitive bid for whatever orders are put out to tender. We hope to decide what to do before the end of the year.

Mr. Wilkinson: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that in making that important decision, which is overdue for the Army, he will take into consideration the potential of dedicated battlefield anti-tank helicopters against armour?

Mr. Younger: I thank my hon. Friend for his suggestion. We are looking widely at the whole range of methods by which we can deal with the threat from enemy armour. One is the provision of effective tanks, but there are other alternatives, and I shall not rule out what he has said.

Mr. Duffy: The Secretary of State's reply, that he has no successor programmes in hand, is very alarming. He must know that the last significant British development in tank technology was announced by a Labour Government, in respect of Chobham armour. There has been nothing of significance since, although, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, the Soviets have made significant developments over the past two years. As his hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) has just reminded him, that also applies to anti-tank weaponry.

Mr. Younger: That is perfectly true, and that is why we are examining the choices that we can make for the replacement of Chieftain and whether we can afford it.

Mr. Wiggin: Does my right hon. Friend accept, when taking advice on the matter, that the great weight of anti-tank weaponry possessed by all sides in a future battle is likely to make the tank about as effective as the horse was at the beginning of the last war? Will he be very careful before he proceeds to spend large sums on future tank technology?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate that there are various ways of dealing with the threat from tanks, but I do not think that I would subscribe to my hon. Friend's description of the tank as being quite so ineffective.

Mr. Wallace: Is not the delay in placing orders for Challenger tanks and coming forward with a replacement programme for Chieftain a symptom of the problems that the Secretary of State faces in trying to get his defence budget to match? He is postponing important decisions. Now that such a distinguished Conservative Back Bencher as the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) has advocated a defence review, does he not think that it is time to take that advice?

Mr. Younger: I do not agree. As there was no question in the past of further tank orders, we are now considering what to do about replacing the Chieftain tank. We review the defence programme every year and balance resources with the programme. This year is no exception.

Mr. Patnick: If and when my right hon. Friend considers a replacement for the Chieftain tank, will he bear in mind that the tracks and turret are made in a subsidiary

of a Sheffield firm, William Cook plc? Will he take that fact into account in ensuring that the best possible equipment is obtained for the British Army?

Mr. Younger: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to that fact. It would be for the makers to decide whether subcontractors should be employed to do the work. I have no doubt that in due course that my hon. Friend will be drawing that fact to the attention of the makers of the tank.

Front-line Aircraft

Mr. Buckley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the current proportion of the Royal Air Force's front-line aircraft which are not fully operational.

Mr. Soley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the current proportion of Royal Air Force front-line aircraft which are not fully operational.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): It has been the policy of successive Governments not to provide detailed information about the operational readiness of elements of the armed forces. However, I can assure the hon. Members that all Royal Air Force aircraft assigned to operational duties are fully manned and equipped and thus able to undertake their designated missions.

Mr. Buckley: The Select Committee on Defence has reported that, despite the high cost of the maintenance and repair budget, one third to one half of the front-line defence aircraft are not available. Is that not dangerous and deplorable, and is it not yet another example of the Ministry of Defence procuring expensive equipment and then having to spend large sums of money on repairing and maintaining it?

Mr. Hamilton: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Tornado aircraft. It is customary to have reserve aircraft, although I accept that the number of Tornado aircraft in reserve is very high. These aircraft are due to be modified at the end of the production run. I expect them to come on stream in the early 1990s.

Mr. Soley: No Opposition Member will be surprised to learn that the Conservatives have consistently refused to give such information, even though it is readily available to research workers at airports around the world. Will he say whether some of the operational failures are due to the lack of Foxhunter radar? Does he intend to return to the bizarre idea of filling the noses of some of the aeroplanes with concrete, with which, presumably, to ram our opponents?

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman knows that in 1984–85 the non-availability of Foxhunter radar meant that the programme had to be rescheduled. That is why we are now operating according to the availability of both radar and pilots to fly the aircraft.

Sir Antony Buck: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his front-line appointment and wish him a long and happy tenure in his office.
Will he ensure that pressure is put on the Royal Air Force to make sure that a larger number of aircraft that at all times are operational are in service? Will he keep up pressure to that effect on the Royal Air Force?

Mr. Hamilton: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his kind remarks.
The intention is that the aircraft should operate at maximum efficiency. That is why we are not prepared to bring the reserve aircraft into service until they have been modified.

Sir Ian Lloyd: The ratio is of great significance, but what is the point of either the Royal Air Force or NATO maintaining a high ratio of operational aircraft if they are unable to communicate with each other in times of war, except through a third party, or if they are unable to be rearmed on the aerodromes of another allied nation or if, because of the current disastrous IFF position, a very large proportion are likely to be shot down by our own forces?

Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend confirms the remark that I made, which was that the operational efficiency of those aircraft must be supreme before we are prepared to let them fly.

Mr. Rogers: May I offer my congratulations to the Minister and welcome him back to quiet pastures.
The Defence Select Committee has rightly pointed out on a number of occasions in the past year that the Government's defence procurement programme is a shambles. When will the Government acknowledge that many of our front-line aircraft and other services are unable to meet a threat that may come at any time?

Mr. Hamilton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks.
That is precisely the point that I have been trying to make. In practice, it is very important to ensure that those aircraft maintain operational effectiveness on the front line. That is why aircraft that do not meet that requirement are kept in reserve.

Low-frequency Sonar

Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research is being done into low-frequency sonar for defence purposes.

Mr. Sainsbury: Low-frequency passive sonar is already in use with the Royal Navy. The Ministry of Defence is currently conducting a research programme into low-frequency active sonar and its potential applications. That work is being undertaken within the Ministry of Defence research establishments. For security reasons it would not be appropriate to comment on the specific research projects.

Mr. Cousins: Does the Minister accept that there has been a dangerous weakening in Britain's anti-submarine defences because of the declining effectiveness of towed array sonar and the hydrophone barrier? Will the Minister therefore give the research into long range low-frequency active sonar to which he has just referred the utmost priority and accompany it with design studies into a new generation of ships that are capable of deploying it?

Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman was not very accurate in referring to the declining effectiveness of towed

array sonar. The towed array sonars in use are very effective. What has changed is that the latest Soviet submarines are a great deal quieter than earlier generations.
With regard to the platforms from which we might deploy low-frequency active sonar, it is too early to make any decision. We can make a decision on the appropriate platform only after a decision on the sonar itself has been arrived at. As the hon. Gentleman knows, low frequency sonar exists in a number of forms. Some of them—like the sonar systems currently in service—could be fitted to existing or planned warships.

Mr. Harry Greenway: When does my hon. Friend expect to be in a position to make the decision to which he has referred, and when will the order for new sonar buoys be placed? Will he remember that the firm of Dowty's in my constituency has always done a brilliant job in such matters?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am aware of the contribution made by firms in my hon. Friend's constituency to our sonar capacity. We have a steady programme of new sonar buoys and sonar equipment. The particular type of sonar involved in the question is currently the subject of a major research programme and has not yet reached the stage where we can make a decision to purchase.

NATO (Expenditure)

Mr. Clay: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to discuss with NATO colleagues the relative share of military expenditure borne by individual countries within the Alliance.

Mr. Younger: I shall have a number of opportunities later in the year for discussion with NATO colleagues on the sharing of risks, roles and responsibilities within the Alliance, including at the defence planning committee in December.

Mr. Clay: Why is the Secretary of State being so acquiescent and weak-willed about the United States' demands that Britain and other European members should pay a higher proportion of NATO's costs? Has he ever pointed out to the United States—or will he point: out to the United States—that Britain already pays disproportionately high amounts of NATO's costs? Are the British Government bailing out President Reagan's economic incompetence, with his budget and trade deficits? Most of NATO's policy decisions are made in the interests of the United States, so why does the Secretary of State not suggest that the United States pays most of the costs?

Mr. Younger: The United States does pay most of the costs. It pays more than any other member of NATO. It is worth noting that it does so because it takes the view that it is in the interests of defending the United States that Europe should be sound and solidly defended. It is my view, and that of the whole Alliance, that the European members should do more than they do at present, and I shall be encouraging them to do so.

Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the American request is entirely reasonable and that the European countries should respond? Bearing in mind that there is already limited discreet French co-operation on air


defence and related matters, although the French are not members of the military command, is my right hon. Friend confident that that can be extended, by a further limited amount at least, so that the pressure on the other contributors can be mitigated?

Mr. Younger: The European members of the Alliance have a major role to play in ensuring the defence of western Europe. The United States has drawn attention to that, and that matter has been dealt with by a NATO Alliance initiative to set in hand a study of the relative shares of the burden carried by Europeans and the United States. We hope to get a report of that study by the end of the year.

Mr. Sean Hughes: In view of the financial implications of our respective defence policies, will the Secretary of State tell us whether the Government believe that conventional parity is compatible with flexible response?

Mr. Younger: Yes, it is a very compatible aim that we should get conventional weapons on each side down to parity, or much nearer to parity, while the whole question of the flexible response enables us to have a variable range of different types of major weapon to respond to whatever threat comes.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is most important that the United States, as the largest contributor to NATO by far, should be reassured that Europe is prepared not merely to contribute to its own defence but to pay for it as well?

Mr. Younger: I quite agree with my hon. Friend. It is remarkable that the United States is not only a full member of NATO but plays the largest part in providing resources for all of us to defend western Europe. That solidarity and that linkage across the Atlantic have prevented war for 40 years, and if the policy is maintained I see no reason why it should not continue to do that.

Nuclear Test Site (Nevada)

Mr. Heffer: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the likely continued availability of Nevada as a test site for British nuclear weapons and as to the factors which will influence this.

Mr. Sainsbury: Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that the Nevada test site will continue to be available for as far ahead as we can foresee. Any change to that position would have to be considered in the light of the needs and circumstances pertaining at the time.

Mr. Heffer: Is the Minister aware that it is now 43 years since Hiroshima was bombed? Is it not time that we worked towards a comprehensive test ban treaty? Is it not also time that we stopped following the United States of America, made our own decisions and recognised that we do not really have an independent nuclear deterrent? We are very much dependent upon the United States of America, and we ought to start declaring some independence from it.

Mr. Sainsbury: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we continue to play a leading role in efforts towards balanced and verifiable disarmament. That will continue to be the policy of Her Majesty's Government. In that policy we are

fully supported by the whole of the NATO Alliance, which, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just said, shares the view that there is a need for flexible response.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend look at the question again and note that it is interesting that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) should be worried about whether we shall continue to be able to test our nuclear deterrent? Does that not show a scintilla of sense that is unusual in the hon. Member for Walton?

Mr. Sainsbury: I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend's view. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has his own special views on nuclear deterrence—to my mind he does not fully appreciate the nature of deterrence—and his views may be quite widely shared on the Opposition Benches.

Disabled Ex-Service Personnel

Mr. Ashley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received regarding ex gratia payments for ex-service men and women seriously disabled by alleged negligence before 8 December 1986.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Roger Freeman): A number of representations have been received from the right hon. Gentleman and others.

Mr. Ashley: Does the Minister agree that every service man and woman now has a right to sue for compensation if he or she is disabled as a result of negligence and that that right was won partly by the campaigning efforts of a group of severely disabled ex-service men who, ironically, are denied that right? Will the Minister reconsider his refusal to set up a trust fund to make ex gratia payments to ex-service men who are disabled but who do not have the right to sue?

Mr. Freeman: I can confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that service men and women now have the right to sue for negligence. I pay tribute to him and to many other right hon. and hon. Members for the campaign that was waged to draw attention to this inequity. As was made clear during proceedings in the House, we have no intention of making that repeal retrospective, and that includes the application of the trust fund. But I can confirm that those ex-service men and women to whom he referred receive benefit payments from the DHSS and from the Ministry of Defence.

Mr. David Martin: Will my hon. Friend tell the House how many serving men and women have made claims for damages since December 1986?

Mr. Freeman: Yes. Since 8 December 1986 some 250 service men and women have made claims for damages and those cases are now in course of settlement.

Mr. Cohen: Have not many of the nuclear test veterans and their families suffered terribly purely in the course of serving their country? Should not the Government provide proper compensation for those families?

Mr. Freeman: The Government maintain that there is no evidence of any causal link between the nuclear tests


that took place in Australia in the 1950s and any injuries or disease that may or may not be suffered by service men and women.

Mr. Alexander: If there is negligence, surely an ex-service man or service men ought to be entitled to sue? What is so magical about the cut-off date? Is not the cut-off date causing grave damage and disturbance to those members of the services who otherwise would have perfectly valid claims?

Mr. Freeman: That was just the reason why the Government decided to repeal the law to permit service men and women, effectively from 8 December 1986, to sue for damages, so I agree with my hon. Friend, but we cannot turn the clock back and make that repeal retrospective.

F111 Aircraft (Cruise Missiles)

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his United States counterpart about the possibility of F111s stationed in the United Kingdom carrying air-launched cruise missiles.

Mr. Younger: The United States Defence Secretary and I met at the NATO nuclear planning group meeting in April, when Ministers discussed the need to keep the Alliance's forces properly structured and up to date. No decisions on NATO force adjustments have yet been taken.

Mr. Mullin: Has the Secretary of State seen the report in the recent Jane's Defence Weekly, which says that a fleet of Amrican FB 111A planes will be stationed here in 1989–90 and that they will be armed with short-range attack missiles and air-launched cruise missiles? Is that not a cynical attempt to subvert the recent arms control treaties?

Mr. Younger: I did see some report of that nature, but there is no truth in it. NATO is still considering a number of options for adjusting its remaining nuclear forces following the INF agreement. Options include possible redeployment to a number of European countries of longer-range dual-capable aircraft currently based in the United States, but no decisions have yet been taken. Deployment to Europe of strategic air-launched cruise missiles is not one of the matters under consideration.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does not the INF accord enhance the importance for deterrence of air-launched systems such as the F111s stationed in this country? Is it not important that they should be able to continue to penetrate Warsaw pact air defences?

Mr. Younger: Yes. My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. It is necessary that at all times we should have the capability in the NATO Alliance to respond to any level of attack. To do so we have to be able to penetrate Soviet territory. It is our policy to make sure that in the evolving situation of threat we are always able to do so.

Mr. O'Neill: In the light of the Secretary of State's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes), conventional balance and flexible response are compatible. Is it not the case that it logically flows from

that statement that the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to accept air-launched cruise missiles as part of that flexible response?

Mr. Younger: I was talking about air-launched strategic cruise missiles. I made it clear that that was not one of the options. I have already made it clear that among the options that we are considering for the possible replacement of our nuclear free-fall bombs is an air-launched, air-to-ground cruise missile. That is perfectly well known, and we are still studying whether it will be possible.

NATO Ships (Nuclear Weapons)

Mr. Galloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to review with his colleagues in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation the number of nuclear weapons carried by North Atlantic Treaty Organisation ships; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Younger: NATO Ministers regularly review the nuclear forces available to the Alliance, including sea-based weapons.

Mr. Galloway: The Secretary of State would not be so complacent if he had read the recently published American report, entitled "Nuclear Warships and Naval Nuclear Weapons", which reveals that 16,000 nuclear bombs are currently sailing on the world's waterways—that is, 16,000 nuclear accidents waiting to happen in a nuclear traffic jam on the high seas. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, even within his policy, and even within his nuclear obsessions, there is a case for talking to the other side about a reduction in the sheer number of weapons that are currently sailing on the high seas?

Mr. Younger: I am sure that there must be better ways of trying to get headlines than that. The hon. Gentleman must come to terms with the fact that, as long as nuclear weapons exist, our security depends upon any aggressor being certain that it cannot attack us without the risk of receiving an attack in return. That is the basis of the maintenance of peace, which the Government and the NATO Alliance are successfully achieving at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Franks: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 July.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with Mr. Paul Obeng, chairman of the Committee of Secretaries of Ghana.

Mr. Franks: I take this opportunity to thank the Prime Minister, who, in stark contrast to the Leader of the Opposition, once again when abroad batted for Britain and for Barrow to try to secure the Canadian submarine order. After almost eight weeks on strike, pending further negotiations to settle the dispute, is it not time that local unions in Barrow balloted their members for a return to work?

The Prime Minister: I have great sympathy with what my hon. Friend said. I understand that management and unions are meeting today, and I hope that the dispute will be resolved. I share my hon. Friend's view that the strike is damaging to Britain and to our prospects of getting more orders from abroad. It is particularly damaging to Vickers, and it could even be damaging the prospect of getting more home orders, too.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the appointment of a new Secretary of State for Health mean that the Government are now ready to provide the actual cost of the nurses' pay award and the grading review?

The Prime Minister: Dividing the DHSS is something that many people have thought should have been done for some time. I was in the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance when it was mooted that the two Departments should be put together. The two Departments together were more than one person could legitimately undertake. The burden was very great indeed, so we have separated them.
With regard to nurses' pay, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, we have provided the full amount of £803 million estimated by the review body. We believe that that should be sufficient for a fair implementation of the new structural pay agreement, and we hope that regional health authorities and districts will get on with making that structural arrangement.

Mr. Kinnock: The pay review body said:
the actual cost of our recommendations may well differ from our estimates".
Will the Prime Minister now give a specific undertaking that if the actual costs are higher than the estimates she will make up the difference, or is she again to betray nurses and patients?

The Prime Minister: We believe that the £803 million is sufficient to reach a fair implementation of the structural pay agreement. It is for the regions to determine how to allocate the funds to the districts. The main allocation of the central funds has already been made to the regions. It is for the regions to determine how to allocate funds to districts, because they are best placed to take account of local factors that may affect the outcome of the grading exercise. One of the problems is that the local health authorities are not getting on sufficiently rapidly with the regrading and, therefore, the nurses do not quite know where they are.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the cuts to nurses pay under the last Labour Government.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Do my right hon. Friend and her newly enlarged Cabinet plan to introduce legislation to abolish oaths of allegiance being sworn to the Crown and to replace them with democratic oaths? Does she not regard such a proposal as disloyal, if not treacherous? Is she surprised that a Bill has been introduced by a group of Members of the Labour party who expect that their candidate will win the next Labour leadership election on that basis?

The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend has made his own point very effectively indeed.

Dr. Owen: In view of the deplorably short sighted decision not to give any further financial support to the HOTOL project, will the Prime Minister agree, first, to

declassify the patents and, secondly, if any other Government are prepared to come forward in a collaborative project, that this Government will also support HOTOL?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the HOTOL project is only in its very early research stages, but I think that a contrary impression may have been given in certain newspapers. It is a concept of a space plane to reduce the cost of launching satellites. There is no question of this country being able to finance the research or production of such an enormous project, which would be in the order of £4 billion to £6 billion. We think that our research moneys could far better go to many other projects which would help our own people far more.

Mr. Alexander: Following my right hon. Friend's recent involvement with the Tidy Britain Group, will she consider turning her energies towards the problems of noise in our streets? Does she agree that some of the noise coming from open car windows and transistors in the streets is deeply offensive and that legislation should now be considered to reduce that noise to much more acceptable levels?

The Prime Minister: I agree—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We should hear the answer.

The Prime Minister: Answering from this Dispatch Box, I agree with my hon. Friend about noise and how very difficult it can be to make oneself heard.
With regard to a clean Britain, if people did not throw things down, had more personal pride and responsibility for their villages, towns and cities, and made less noise and objection to such an unexceptionable statement, we might have very much cleaner towns and cities.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Welsh: As the Prime Minister in her reshuffle has now made the Secretary of State in charge of the Department of Health and Social Security half the Minister that he once was, will she now sort out the mess in the Scottish Office? Is she aware that, on the one hand, there is no Law Officer or Agriculture Minister who can participate in debates in the House and, on the other, the one-man band from Stirling, for example, is responsible for education, for health, for social work, for sport and so on? He is not very good at it. To those have now been added agriculture, forestry and fishing. Will she turn her attention to a sensible and organised form of government in Scotland, for the first time in decades?

The Prime Minister: The Scottish Office works extremely well under one of the best Scottish Secretaries of State that it has ever had. It has an excellent team— [Interruption.] I point out to the hon. Gentleman, if I can be heard through the noise, which is such an awful example to schoolchildren, that the Scottish earnings are the third highest in Britain.

Mr. Andy Stewart: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, when she visited the Nottinghamshire coalfield in 1976 output stood at 2 tonnes per manshift? Today, under the leadership of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, output has reached over 5 tonnes per manshift. Recently, the Black Diamond of Sherwood Thoresby colliery broke the European weekly record for deep-mined coal, at 61,700 tonnes. Will my right hon. Friend take time in the next year to visit Nottinghamshire to see for herself how the Notts miners are preparing to meet the challenge of privatisation of the electricity industry?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The record that my hon. Friend mentions is quite outstanding and it is a great tribute to the UDM and all of those who work in the coal mine. It puts miners in a very good position to meet the challenges of the next decade. I shall certainly try to come up next year and give them my personal best wishes on their marvellous record.

Mr. McAvoy: Is the Prime Minister aware of the widespread anger in the country at her appointment of the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) as European Commissioner? Is she further aware that that appointment is regarded by the overwhelming majority of people as a pay-off for silence during the Westland affair?

The Prime Minister: The nomination—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to listen to answers.

The Prime Minister: The nomination of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) is an excellent one——

Mr. Skinner: Why did the right hon. Lady sack him then?

The Prime Minister: I believe——

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is only fair that, when the Prime Minister has been asked a question, she is given an opportunity to answer it.

The Prime Minister: The Opposition cannot debate— they can only shout. That is why they shout. The nomination of my right hon. and learned Friend, the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, is an excellent one. I believe very strongly that we should put to Europe those who have had considerable experience of Cabinet office. My right hon. and learned Friend served in the Treasury as a Cabinet Minister, he served in the Home Office as a Cabinet Minister and he served in the Department of Trade and Industry as a Cabinet Minister. He will be very well placed to represent Britain at an extremely difficult and important time for the future of Europe and of the Commission. I hope that the Opposition will see fit to put up names that are as distinguished.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hamilton: As the secretary of the ANZAC group, may I wish my right hon. Friend a successful visit to Australia at the end of the week? Will she confirm that

while she is there she will not make any speeches critical of the Leader of the Opposition, that she will not make any tasteless jokes about his wife, that she will not swear at any Australian soldiers and that she will behave with a dignity that will forever elude the Leader of the Opposition?

The Prime Minister: I have no difficulty in giving the confirmation that my hon. Friend seeks.

Mr. Wallace: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wallace: The Prime Minister will be aware that although the closure of Dounreay is being phased over many years the job loss implications are worrying for the north of Scotland. Is she aware that we will not be satisfied by being fobbed off with the idea of a nuclear dump in the north of Scotland? Indeed, it might discourage many of the employment opportunities that we shall now have to develop in that part of the country.

The Prime Minister: I hope the hon. Gentleman appreciates the strenuous efforts that we have made to phase out those job losses over a long period, because we are well aware of the problems of getting extra jobs in that area. I did not know that the hon. Gentleman was such an enthusiast for nuclear energy. With regard to Nirex, we have not yet received a report from that organisation about the disposal of some of the waste.

Foreign Terrorist Organisations

Mr. Hunter: To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty's Government's policy with regard to foreign terrorist organisations known to be in regular contact with the IRA having offices in the United Kingdom.

The Prime Minister: The IRA is a proscribed organisation in this country, and anyone who has a meeting with members of the IRA may be liable to prosecution under section 1 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984.

Mr. Hunter: Since the IRA, the ANC and SWAPO, as exemplified by the statement made by Mr. Sam Nujoma in Dublin last November, not only show interest in one another but support one another's tactics, and bearing in mind that the ANC is responsible for the murder of 600 black South Africans in the past two to three years, is it right that London should be an open haven for South African terrorist organisations, which are the self-confessed friends of the IRA?

The Prime Minister: The information that my hon. Friend has given about the links between those organisations will, of course, be investigated. As he knows, the other organisations that he has mentioned are not proscribed in this country. Therefore, the tradition is that anyone is free to express his political views, provided that he does so within the law. Of course, we condemn violence from whatever quarter it comes in South Africa. The only way in which progress can be made is by peaceful negotiation. The current talks on Angola and Namibia are encouraging in that respect.

Select Committee Report

Mr. Eric Martlew: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you would investigate a serious breach of the procedures of the House. I am talking about the pressure that has been put on the Chairman of a Select Committee by the Government to change a report arbitrarily without taking it to the Committee. Today there was a press conference on the Chernobyl report, which had been agreed by both sides of the Committee. The Chairman instructed the Clerk of the Committee to alter the report—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—where it said that it was "highly probable" that lamb had got into the food chain. The Chairman instructed the Clerk to delete the word "highly", so the report reads only "probable". The only reason for that was that the Chairman had been got at by the Government. It is a disgrace.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Matters of that kind must be dealt with in the Committee. They cannot be dealt with by me. I call Mr. Harry Barnes to move his motion on the ten-minute Bill.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Harry Baraes.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a matter for me— [HON. MEMBERS: "It is."] Order. Matters relating to a Select Committee are for the Select Committee concerned. They must be taken up in the Select Committee.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not true that at some point Select Committees must report to the House and that on occasions those reports are debated? What my hon. Friend has said is that the Chairman of that Committee has doctored that report, on the advice of the Government. The report has been nobbled. That means that a report that will be presented to the House, under your stewardship, Mr. Speaker, has been nobbled by the Government. Of course it is a matter for you to investigate.

Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for reports made by Select Committees. That must be a matter for the Committee concerned. If the Committee does not like what has happened, it can report to the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Wiggin.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I was given no warning by a member of my Committee. I was informed by the Clerk of the Committee that there had been a misprint in the summary of recommendations—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Accordingly, I directed that that change should be reported to a press conference that I held this morning.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: The Chairman of the Committee has given his explanation.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. With great respect to you, I,

and I believe the House, would be extremely grateful if you would review, with great accuracy—as I know you will —the words that you used about the responsibilities of Select Committees. I am sure that the House will recognise that the sole function of a Select Committee is to report to the House. The substance of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) related to a report to the House.

Mr. Martlew: It has been published.

Mr. Douglas: Yes. Therefore, if that report has been put into the public domain, any consequential alteration of that report is a matter for you and the House. I ask you to take that on board.

Mr. Speaker: First, as I understand it, this is not the report of the Committee, but a summary of it given at a press conference. Secondly, the substance of a Select Committee report is for the whole Committee to agree. If the Committee feels that something has gone wrong and that an alteration, which the Chairman has said is a technical one, has been made, it is a matter for the Committee to investigate.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. While a Select Committee is considering a report it remains the property of that Committee, but once the report is published by the Committee—the report in question obviously has been published, because it was dealt with at a press conference —it is then reported to the House. The general rule is that until a Committee has concluded its deliberations the report remains its property and you, Mr. Speaker, would object to hon. Members referring to its contents on the Floor of the House.
That is not the case here. The report has been published, the Government have apparently brought their influence to bear on the final report and therefore it is the job of this Chamber to ensure that some sort of investigation is established, because——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me deal with this, because the House knows that this is an Opposition Day, and we should get on with the debate. The position is absolutely clear. The report that is made to the House cannot be altered except by the Committee. It is not open to any individual hon. Member to do that. That is the position.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take the points of order, but there must be no complaint if hon. Members who wish to take part in the housing debate do not get called.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: On a genuine point of order, Mr. Speaker. In Hansardyesterday you rightly said that you hoped that
the whole House will always uphold the authority of the Chair. If that does not happen, anarchy becomes the order of the day".—[Official Report, 25 July 1988; Vol. 138, c. 33.]
It is clear that that is what is happening. In the Division yesterday, on a motion to support you in your decision to name a Member, only three Opposition Members supported you and 26 voted against you. How does that in any way square with your advice to the House that the whole House should uphold the authority of the Chair when, patently, only a minuscule number of Opposition Members are prepared to support you and nine times as many are prepared to oppose you?

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) said about the Select Committee report, I ask you to say that, for once, you will look into the matter, consider it and report back to the House, rather than taking a hasty decision based upon the fact that my hon. Friend may or may not have been right. This is a matter that should be decided by Back Benchers and the House. Surely, as the representative of Back Benchers, it is your duty to uphold the rights of all Members of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Undoubtedly it is, but I believe that the whole House feels that it would be wrong for the Speaker to assume responsibilities that he has not got. As the hon. Gentleman has pressed the matter, and so that we may get on with the debate, I shall look into it. However, I do not believe that it is my responsibility and, as I have already said, I believe that it is the responsibility of the Committee. Once a Committee has reported, it is not possible to alter its report.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The time taken by points of order will have to be taken into account later in the day.

Mr. Hoyle: Does it not concern you, Mr. Speaker when it is being said that a Select Committee report has been tampered with by the Chairman of that Committee?

Mr. Speaker: I have said that I shall look into the matter.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The point of order raised by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) has provoked me to take this up with you, Mr. Speaker. I was a bit disappointed that you did not respond to that point of order. It seemed to me that the hon. Gentleman was trying to put you in a position in which you felt that you did not have the support of the Opposition. That is simply not true. It is very unfair of the hon. Member for Tatton to raise that sort of point of order and it should not go unanswered. It should be denied here and now.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I assure the House that if I felt that I did not have the support of the whole House there would be no point in continuing.

Mr. David Curry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You should know that the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) is suffering from amnesia. He should recall that it was said in the body of the report that it was "probable", and that the whole Committee agreed to exclude the word "highly". That reflects what is in the body of the report. The hon. Gentleman's amnesia betrays him, and he should not cast aspersions on the Chairman of the Committee.

Mr. Speaker: I have no knowledge of this report. I said in answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that I would look into the matter, even though I do not think that it is really for me.

Petitioners' Rights

Mr. Harry Barnes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to protect the signatories of petitions presented to any organisation or body outside the House of Commons from any penalty or discrimination, legal or otherwise.
The Bill that I seek to introduce is about petitioners' rights. Three of the greatest petitions ever presented to Parliament were the people's charters of the 19th century. They contained six points of wide constitutional and democratic significance: secret ballots, equal electoral districts, payment of MPs, the end of property qualifications for people entering Parliament, universal male suffrage and parliaments to be elected annually. Only that last demand has not yet seen the light of day. The suffragettes helped to overcome the sexist limitations of the initial Chartists' demands.
The poll tax legislation which has just been adopted, together with the earlier measure for Scotland, likewise contains six points of great constitutional and democratic significance, but they are all regressive, making it a counter-charter. First, the franchise will be cut, as many of those who cannot afford their poll tax seek to evade it by leaving their names off the poll tax and electoral registers. Secondly, normal democracy will be virtually ended as the central state machine takes over the last remnants of local government independence. Thirdly, just to be on the safe side, local government elections will be fixed as pressure is created to keep down poll tax levels and the services that they provide.
Fourthly, the poor will be required to subsidise the rich, in contrast to the norms of democratic taxation systems. Fifthly, for the first time since the universal franchise was finally achieved in the Acts of 1918 and 1928, people will have to pay tax to qualify to vote. Sixthly, civil liberties essential to a democracy will be damaged, as poll tax registrars will be required to invade all sorts of sensitive information to try to discover who is missing from their registers.
In the House on 28 March, at column 839, the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) even hit on the notion of using anti-poll-tax petitions as an avenue for placing people's names on poll tax registers. The Minister of State, Scottish Office agreed with that in column 851—as, it seems, did the Leader of the House in answer to my business question on 23 June, in columns 1278–79.
There is, of course, a logic to such illiberal thought. If criminal records, housing benefit and educational grant records and so on can be invaded by the poll tax registrar, why not use petitioners' names and addresses? Fortunately, public petitions to Parliament are out for such purposes because, as you confirmed, Mr. Speaker, in column 1281 of Hansardof 23 June, the names and addresses of such petitioners are Parliament's property and are not available to the Government or to the registrars. However, petitions to the Prime Minister, Government Departments and poll tax registrars are available for this use and abuse unless the House decides to pass a Bill on the lines of the one that I seek to introduce.
It is time to turn the logic of the hon. Member for Stockton, South the right way round. If there is a sound, democratic and constitutional reason for protecting


petitioners' names and addresses, might there not be a similar reason for protecting sensitive information on housing, employment and education? The word "petition" means a prayerful request and in its constitutional form it is an application for redress to an authority, and no duress can be levelled at petitioners for the act of petitioning. Nowadays such authorities are often Government Departments and agencies, but it is essentially the monarch, Parliament and the courts that are currently covered by petitioners' rights.
My Bill would protect the signatories to petitions presented to any organisation or body outside Parliament from any discrimination, legal or otherwise, and would include such petitions as the people's petition recently presented to the Prime Minister. Petitions to the Commons must be in writing and must be free from disrespectful language or imputations against any tribunal or constituted authority. The Bill would require similar provisions and checks over petitions qualifying for protection when delivered outside Parliament.
I am seeking to place petitions in this country on the same, or on a similar, level to petitions in the United States of America, while acknowledging the constitutional differences between the United Kingdom and the United States. The right to petition the Government in the USA is secured by the first amendment to the United States constitution, which was ratified between 1789 and 1791. It says:
Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people peacefully to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
A United States Supreme Court ruling in 1875 in the United States v. Cruikshank case took the view that the first amendment assumes
the existence of the right of the people to assemble for lawful purposes and protects it against encroachment by Congress. The right was not created by the amendment; neither was its continuance guaranteed except as against congressional interference. For their protection in its enjoyment, therefore, the people must look to the states. The power for that purpose was originally placed there, and has never been surrendered. The right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for anything else connected with the powers or duties of the national government is an attribute of national citizenship, and as such under the protection of and guaranteed by the United States. The very idea of a government republican in form implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress of grievances".
That protection should be provided in this country in connection with petitions to Government. My Bill seeks to protect petitioners who add their names and addresses to petitions to the Government and other official bodies.
That protection would be similar to the protections provided to those who petition Parliament in the way that is laid down in "Erskine May".
In seeking to extend petitioning rights I should tell hon. Members that they should be aware of the role that petitioning played in the development of Parliament and parliamentary democracy. The right to petition the monarch goes back to Saxon times and was implicitely recognised in Magna Carta. The Bill of Rights 1688, the tercentenary of which we have just celebrated, said:
it is the right of the Subjects to petition the King, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitions are illegal.
Parliament probably originated in meetings of the King's Council, which considered petitions. Up to the start of the 15th century the main work of Parliament was the considering of petitions. It was only with the final growth of parliamentary democracy, especially with the slow start of the working-class franchise from 1867, that petitioning started to lose its constitutional significance.
When people acquire the vote, have the freedom to join together in trade unions which can freely negotiate for their interests, start to have their ideas and interests expessed in the press, make the political system respond to their concerns through a progressive taxation system and a growing welfare state, petitioning will be of minor significance. However, when employment Bills, Budgets, cuts in the Health Service, attacks on housing benefit and income support, Murdoch and the poll tax start to dismantle the workers' achievements, petitioning rights become important in an age of declining freedoms.
Furthermore, we can no longer be described as a parliamentary democracy. Elections are presidential. Governments dictate to Parliament through the Whips and through their use of patronage. The new computer technology adds to central control and authority. Against such trends, democratisation at the workplace and decentralisation are essential. Petitioning rights have their part to play in the struggle for re-enfranchisement, similar in many ways to the Chartists' initial struggle for working-class enfranchisement.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Thomas Graham, Mr. Max Madden, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Ms. Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Jim Cousins, Mr. John Cummings, Mr. Jimmy Wray, Mr. Dick Douglas, Mr. John Hughes, Mr. Harry Cohen and Mr. Alan Meale.

PETITIONERS' RIGHTS

Mr. Harry Barnes accordingly presented a Bill to protect the signatories of petitions presented to any organisation or body outside the House of Commons from any penalty or discrimination, legal or otherwise: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Wednesday 27 July and to be printed. [Bill 209.]

Opposition Day

[19TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Housing Benefit Transitional Scheme

Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move,
That this House recalls that in April Her Majesty's Government imposed savage cuts in Housing Benefit which continue to cause serious hardship to millions of claimants; notes that the vast majority of losers are not eligible for help from the emergency scheme of transitional protection which Her Majesty's Government was forced to set up; is concerned that three months after this scheme was announced to the House only a handful of applications have been processed and that at the present rate it will be at least February 1989 before Her Majesty's Government achieves its inadequate target of 350,000 successful applications; records its alarm at recent Ministerial statements that even many of those who are successful will lose their transitional protection next March; takes the view that the scheme has failed to relieve the pressing hardship caused by the cuts in Housing Benefit; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to reverse those cuts forthwith.

Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Cook: Last April, the Government, as an act of deliberate policy, cut housing benefit. That removed housing benefit from 1 million claimants and reduced housing benefit for 4·5 million other claimants. How popular that step turned out to be can be gauged from the front pages of today's newspapers in which the Secretary of State, who had to defend those cuts in the House, is variously described as "shunted sideways", "chopped in half" or "sidelined".
Over the past 12 months, I have developed a degree of affection for my sparring partner. I was not always sure whether that affection was reciprocated, but, nevertheless, I have a healthy respect for my opposite number. I regret the fact that he is unable to be with us on this occasion, owing to another engagement, but I am sure that he will read the report of our proceedings. As his skills of presentation have been somewhat criticised over the past 24 hours, I take this opportunity of putting it on the record that I, for one, am quite sure that, if it were possible to make popular the idea that taking £10 off the weekly benefit of a pensioner was a step toward ending the dependency culture, the right hon. Gentleman could have achieved it.
The Government are in trouble over health and social security not because the man at the top is not a good enough saleman, but because nobody wants to buy the Governments policies on welfare. I note that one of today's papers says that the Secretary of State is now left with
the dull routine of benefit payments.
Let me offer encouragement to the Secretary of State, because he may need cheering up in his current position. Those constituents whom we meet who live on benefits do not regard the question of their payments as a dull routine. On the contrary, they are matters of vital necessity and importance to them. To nobody is that more important than those constituents whom my hon. Friends have met

over the past three months, who have seen their housing benefit cut by £40, £80, £100 a month—by definition, people on low incomes.
There is a droll debate going on among the new Right on how one can define poverty. Let me offer an invitation to any hon. Members who may find it difficult to work out what poverty is. They need not worry themselves any more about such a difficult question. All they have to do is to come with me and my hon. Friends and meet the people we know who know the meaning of poverty because they live with it every day of their lives and have seen it worsen over the past three months. The most telling testimony to their poverty is the evidence that they simply cannot afford to pay the new levels of rents that are being demanded of them.
Rent arrears across Britain have bounded ahead since April. In Wales, a survey by the Association of District Councils has found that rent arrears have increased by 50 per cent. Lancaster informs me that its rent arrears have increased by one third since April, and it understands that that is one of the lowest increases in Lancashire. Edinburgh projects that the increase in rent arrears will double over the course of this year.
That evidence was not available to the House when we last debated the matter on 27 April. On that occasion, the then Secretary of State for Social Services wisely gave up the attempt to defend the scheme that he had just imposed. Instead, he pulled out of the hat an emergency package to mitigate the worst consequences of his own scheme. We were invited then, and we are invited again in the Government's amendment, to applaud the Government for their generosity in protecting some people from the worst consequences of the Government's cuts.
It is now three months almost to the day of that debate and I—and I suspect that I speak for many of my hon. Friends—have yet to meet anyone who has received a payment for transitional protection. I know that I meet different people from Ministers. I know that with some confidence because two weeks ago, opening a debate in the Scottish Grand Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), expressed surprise when he heard of complaints that people had not been receiving transitional protection and proceeded to assure the Committee that if any hon. Members had evidence that somebody was not receiving the transitional protection he would investigate it on their behalf. He was obviously blissfully unaware that, on the day that he spoke, nobody in Britain had received a single payment for transitional protection. He is, I concede, not a Minister in the Department of Health and Social Security, only a Scottish Office Minister with responsibility for housing and, as such, cannot be expected to know about such things.
Since then, a handful of claimants have managed to get under the wire. Last week, in answer to a parliamentary question from me, the DHSS stated that 18 people had received payment for transitional protection. I checked again this morning and was informed that yesterday that figure of 18 leaped ahead to a total of 68 claimants who have been paid transitional protection. Some of my hon. Friends have met more losers of housing benefit in a single weekend in their constituencies than that figure.
I note that in today's amendment Ministers again preen themselves on the fact that it is remarkable that anyone


has been paid in such a short time. The last time that the Minister of Social Security and the Disabled took part in Question Time, he said:
It is a remarkable achievement that we have been able to set up the new office, employ and train the staff, establish the procedures and advertise".—[Official Report, 12 July 1988; Vol. 137, c. 172.]
What busy people those Ministers are. No wonder they need another Secretary of State to help them shift the furniture around the new office. The truth is that it is not the Ministers who did all this, but the much-abused civil servants who have gamely set out to make sense of Minister's decisions.
I give credit to the civil servants who have been working these past three months to fit into that tight timetable, but I give none to the Ministers because for three years they knew that the cuts were coming. For three years they were warned what those cuts would mean by the citizens advice bureaux, Help the Aged, the Child Poverty Action Group, and the National Consumer Council, and for three years they did nothing to soften the blow.
One of the last things that the current crop of Ministers did before the blow fell was to abolish housing benefit supplement in the last week of March, rather than in the first week of April, in a deliberate attempt to stop those claimants qualifying for the transitional protection that they would otherwise have received. It is perfectly clear not only that Ministers did nothing for three years before the cuts were made, but that they would have done nothing in the three weeks that followed had they not faced the possibility of defeat on our motion of 27 April. As it was, the Secretary of State then produced the minimum necessary to buy off rebellion among his own Back Benchers.
I must utter a word of warning to Conservative Back Benchers, because I fear they are about to discover from their outraged constituents that they were bought off too cheaply. There has been another fresh development in the past couple of weeks. Not only have the first payments been made by the transitional protection unit, but the first rejection slips have been issued by that unit. Last week, 190 claims were processed by the transitional protection unit and, of that number, 96 did not qualify for a penny in transitional protection. Half of those who applied have been refused all benefit. They are the claimants who do not meet the scheme's small print.
I note from the circular to local authorities explaining the inquiry form that is completed in response to every application for transitional protection that where they fill in the boxes marked "No", they should then go straight to what are described as the "escape points". There are plenty of escape points in that form, each of them devised to evade liability to that particular claimant.
First, young tenants with no children are excluded from transitional protection. That is rather odd, because they are the very people who are hit hardest by the invention of a new junior rate of benefit. Any young adult under 26 years of age loses housing benefit at the ferocious marginal rate of 85p in every £1 on any income above £26 per week. I know of one case in Nuneaton of an unemployed man who has been in work, has paid his contributions, and who therefore qualifies for unemployment benefit of £32·75 per week. Out of that meagre income he must pay, as a result

of the cuts in housing benefit, £5·70 rent per week, although his sole income is unemployment benefit. He is not entitled to a penny in transitional protection.
In my own constituency, I know of one person who is working on an MSC scheme, as are many of his generation, and whose net pay is £56 per week. He is now paying a full rent of £24 a week. He would be better off out of work than in work. He also does not qualify for a penny of transitional protection.
Nor is the existence of children itself sufficient to unlock the key to transitional protection. On the contrary, I predict that relatively few families with children will qualify. I can predict that with confidence because the Government's scheme offsets what they lose in housing benefit by any gain that they make in family credit.
I refer to a case that has been passed to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) concerning a Mrs. White, who is a single parent holding down a low-paid job. She gained £12·60 in family credit, but she also lost £13·60 in rent and rate benefits. On top of that, she lost £3·50 per week in free school meals and milk for her children. Therefore, she is £4·50 per week worse off. My hon. Friend took up Mrs. White's case with Ministers. I have before me the reply from the former Under-Secretary of State. I shall preserve it all the more carefully, because this morning I heard John Cole announce that he is a man who should be watched as a future Prime Minister. I shall treasure his letter with due care and as a memento that I knew him when he was a young man.
Replying to the case of Mrs. White, who the House will recall lost £4·50 per week in benefits because of the changes, the former Under-Secretary wrote that her case
demonstrates the success of this scheme.
Mrs. White is deemed to be a success. If the scheme's successes loses £4·50 per week, how much do its failures lose? Still, the Under-Secretary was promoted. In his letter, he helpfully went on to explain the scheme's details, although it must already have been clear to him, as it is clear to me, that Mrs. White has no hope of qualifying for transitional protection because her net loss of £4·50 is not large enough to make her eligible for it.
I turn to the largest number of people not qualifying for help because they are not hit hard enough by the cuts. The Government claim that anyone who has lost more than £2·50 housing benefit will qualify for transitional protection. That comes with a number of footnotes. First, that commitment to £2·50 maximum loss does not include the new 20 per cent. rates penalty that is now excluded from housing benefit. Since that is a new feature of the most startling novelty, I am perplexed as to why it is not covered by the transitional protection that was devised to help phase in the new scheme. I am particularly perplexed because, having met many tenants who have seen their benefits reduced, I can assure Ministers that not one of them has the remotest idea which part of that loss is attributable to the 20 per cent. cut and which is attributable to the general housing benefit cut.
In my own constituency—and, conveniently and coincidentally, in the constituency of the Minister of State —that 20 per cent. adds an average of another £2·60 per week to loss of benefits. Additionally, there are this year's rent and rates increases, most of which took place in April and which are good for another £2 increase in most weekly charges. That, again, is exempt from any transitional protection. That also is rather curious because the


increased rent and rates charge qualifies for housing benefit but apparently it does not qualify for transitional protection, to compensate for the cut in housing benefit.
There may be no logic in those exclusions, but I can understand their political attraction. They enable Ministers to keep saying that they have limited losses to a maximum of £2·60 per week, when in reality they are only helping people who have seen their weekly bills increase by a minimum of £7 per week. One of the dangers of which I am conscious—and it is a failing of which I myself am sometimes guilty—is that, because from time to time I and my hon. Friends meet people who have suffered spectacular losses in housing benefit, we end up with a dulled appreciation of their devastating impact on tight weekly budgets of lesser sums. To individuals or couples whose total weekly income is £50, £60 or £70, £7 per week is an enormous sum.
It may be difficult for certain hon. Members to appreciate the enormity of that sum to many people when, to them, £7 represents the price of a large round in the Smoking Room. However, I can tell hon. Members what £7 means in a pensioner's weekly budget. It means one dozen eggs, a daily newspaper, a couple of loaves, half a kilo of margarine, seven tins of soup, and half a stone of potatoes. That is what £7 means to pensioners, and that is what they must give up if they are to find another £7 out of their weekly budget. Those are the purchases that they must do without.

Mr. Frank Haynes: My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), in commenting that the Minister does not care, will have noticed that Conservative Members do not care either. Look at the empty Government Benches. They are not at all bothered about the subject that we are debating today.
Is my hon. Friend aware that there are many widows and pensioners in Nottinghamshire who are being served a dirty deal by the Government? The heating allowance that they receive from British Coal because of their service is linked to housing benefit, and part of that benefit is reduced because those widows and pensioners receive cash in lieu. That is how the Government serve the pensioners in my constituency.

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend has made a brilliant cameo speech. Let me take him up on his second point first. It was precisely to allow for such local financial considerations that local authorities used to have the discretion to top up the rent rebate scheme that the Government have taken away
As for the numbers present in the Chamber, I remind the House that in a previous debate I pointed out that each Conservative Member represents an average of 7,500 losers of housing benefit. Many of them, tragically, go unrepresented in today's debate, but I suspect that many will be in touch with their Members of Parliament in the weeks ahead as the rejection slips come in from the housing benefit transitional protection unit.
Among those excluded from transitional protection are the claimants who have fallen into one of the many oubliettes with which the new regulations are studded. I remind Ministers of one of the deepest traps, which I drew to their attention when we debated the regulations last November. That is the provision that, after six weeks in hospital, a tenant effectively loses entitlement to housing benefit, because of the odd notion of Ministers that after

six weeks in hospital any person needs only pocket money. Now such people lose housing benefit at 85p in the pound on any income over £8·25 a week.
When I pointed that out to the House in November, the then Under-Secretary said that I had misunderstood the provisions. As he has kindly joined us for his swan song, let me tell him about an elderly constituent of mine who is currently in the local psychiatric hospital. As usual with such illnesses, she has been there for over six weeks. Now, on a single person's state pension, she is paying a weekly rent of £24 a week and is £157 in arrears. Last week she received a notice of repossession from the local authority. It would be an understatement to say that that is unlikely to aid her recovery from a psychiatric illness.
If the House wants to savour the full degree of political bias in the regulations, let me point out that my constituent would continue to qualify for maximum housing benefit if she were in a private hospital, because the regulations make explicit provision to protect the housing benefit of paying patients. However, she qualifies for no transitional protection towards the cut in her housing benefit.
As well as claimants who are not entitled to transitional protection, there are the minority who are so entitled. The real tragedy is that most of them probably will not receive it. Here it is necessary to grapple with the sheer complexity of the structure that emerged from Ministers' panic response to the consequences of their own cuts. We now have a system in which each claimant must apply to the local authority for housing benefit and then make a separate application to an entirely separate agency—the DHSS—for compensation for the cut in housing benefit that the same DHSS has imposed on the local authority.
If the claimant is lucky, he will end up with two separate payments for the same rent: payment of housing benefit from the local authority, and payment of transitional protection from the DHSS. It would be unkind at this point to remind Ministers that they promised us that the scheme would be simple to administer and less confusing for claimants. It has certainly succeeded in confusing some of their own Back Benchers. The Minister of State will recall the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) causing some hilarity at Question Time by asking if he would use his influence to get Norwich city council to hurry up payment of transitional protection, as the delay was causing hardship to his constituents. The Minister was rather more reticent than Norwich city council subsequently turned out to be in pointing out that it was nothing to do with the council.
How many claimants are as confused as Conservative Back Benchers we do not know. Nor do the Government. We know from a parliamentary question three weeks ago that the Government have made no estimate of the take-up rate of transitional protection. That is probably wise of them, as the indications are that it will be pretty miserable. In the past couple of weeks, Ministers have made much of the fact that applications are coming forward at a rate of 4,500 a day. That is a tiny fraction of housing benefit claimants. To be precise, it is 0·0006 per cent., or six per 10,000 claimants. On current form, half of them will receive nothing anyway. At the rate of 2,250 successful applications each working day, it will take until February to hit the Government's own pathetic target of one in 20 claimants—and four weeks later, in March, some of them will lose it again.
We now know from a letter from the Secretary of State that some claimants will lose their transitional protection


at the end of the first year and others at the end of the second. That is because the protection is apparently to be subject to what is described as an erosion factor. That erosion factor has yet to be announced. Let it be announced today. Let us find out just how long "transitional" will be, and just how long the few claimants who receive transitional protection will be entitled to it before they are exposed to the full depth of the cut in their housing benefit.
It was always clear that the emergency package of transitional protection was too late and offered too little help to too few claimants. It is now clear that the scheme is failing to achieve even the Government's meagre targets for it. It is difficult not to compare this grudging, mean little scheme with the unstinting way in which our society helps with the housing costs of more affluent people. In the past week, the press has been full of coverage of the rise in mortgage rates. That 2 per cent. rise will cost the Treasury £900 million in tax relief—nine times the cost of transitional protection. It is given automatically: there is no need to fill out form RR4 and send it to the transitional protection unit. It is not transitional at all, but permanent —or at any rate for as long as interest rates remain high, which, under the present Government, would appear to guarantee it a degree of permanence
The arrangement that automatically releases that support is not in contention between the two sides of the House. No doubt it is proper that a Government who have just forced up mortgage rates should subsidise owner-occupiers for the extra cost. I am sure that all quarters of the House were impressed a fortnight ago when the Prime Minister made the stirring declaration that she got very cross if anyone wanted to stop mortgage interest relief when they themselves had got their feet on the first rung of the ladder by making use of that relief. But what about the people who buy their houses and get their feet on the first rung with the help of mortgage tax relief, and then vote to take away the benefit that the poor need to pay their rent? Why does that not make her cross? Is it because she is among them?
I will tell the Prime Minister what makes Opposition Members angry. It is sitting in our surgeries and hearing the despair and bewilderment of those who have seen their careful weekly budgets wrecked. It is sitting in the Chamber witnessing how the Government can always find the money for tax handouts that target more help on those who need it least. Ours is not a heated, unwise anger, but a cold and resolute anger that leaves us with the determination that, although we may lose the vote tonight, we will spare no effort in gaining the support that we need to end this wicked Government and their evil priorities.

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof,
'applauds the Government's recent reforms of social security; notes that these will result in more taxpayers' money being spent this year than if the old system had continued, and spent in a way better targeted towards those in most need; recognises that the coverage of housing benefit had become too broad; notes that after the reforms housing benefit will still be received by more households than in 1979 and at greater real cost to the taxpayer; welcomes the Government's

announcement of 27th April that some transitional protection for losses in housing benefit is to be made available to people in vulnerable groups; commends the Government for the speed with which the unit to administer these payments has been set up; and congratulates it on meeting its stated target of making the first payments in July.'.
I shall respond to the criticisms and comments of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) by putting them in the context of what the Government have done about social security and housing benefit since they came to office. I remind the House of what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget statement:
But while tax reform is a simple matter for the armchair critic, it is very much more difficult in practice. It is difficult technically and difficult politically—since any tax system, however it arose, creates powerful vested interests in favour of the status quo."—[Official Report, 15 March, 1988; Vol. 129, c. 999.]
If that is true of the tax system, it is certainly true of the social security system.
Since we introduced our reforms in April the Opposition have been looking back all the time to a system to which, after this system has been running for a year or so, I do not believe for one moment anybody will wish to return. This system will be infinitely more desirable, flexible and able to cope with need than the previous system.
Apart from the structural reforms that we have introduced, anybody could be forgiven, after listening to Opposition Members, for forgetting that the Government are spending more, not less, overall on social security in the current year. It is worth reminding the House that, within the scope of the additional resources that we had made available, we have sought to simplify the social security system so that claimants are better aware of that to which they are entitled and staff are better able to administer the system.
We have sought to target the additional help that is available to those who need it most, to get rid of the nonsenses and idiocies of a tax and benefit withdrawal combination in excess of 100 per cent., and, above all, to deliver a better service to those who need the help of the social security system. Of course it is a huge change. It is the greatest change in the social security benefit system since the end of the second world war. No change of that kind can be introduced without problems, but at least the Government have had the courage to tackle the inadequacies, the complexities and many of the nonsenses of the old system.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The Minister castigates what he calls the old system. Why does he not tell the truth? The old system was introduced by the Conservatives. The brand new system that they have introduced is causing so much chaos that they are having to rectify it because it is inflicting so much unnecessary pain and damage.

Mr. Scott: If that is to be the quality of Opposition interventions, I do not think that I shall bother to give way again.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Answer the question.

Mr. Scott: I intend to answer it, but I should like to develop my speech. However, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. In April we changed a system whose basic structure


was established in 1948. As the years went by bits were bolted on to it, which added to its complexities and difficulties. We had the courage to put that right.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Scott: No, I shall not give way again. This is a short debate. The hon. Member for Livingston was not interrupted, and I should like to get on with my speech. The subject can then be debated for the rest of the afternoon.
It is worth reminding the House and those who read the accounts of its proceedings of the Government's record on social security. The taxpayer is now spending £1 billion a week on social security. That is one third higher in real terms than we were spending in 1979. We have spent that amount at a time when unemployment has come down in each of the last 21 months. It is also worth reminding the House that it is possible to pay the extra benefits only because of the success of the Government's economic policies.
Since 1979 we have steadily been spending more each year on housing benefit than was spent in previous years. Expenditure this year is running at over £5 billion. In real terms that is an increase of about 50 per cent. since we came to office in 1979, even after allowing for rises in rents and rates during that period. During the last Labour Administration, using the same measure, expenditure increased by only 3 per cent. in real terms.

Mr. Frank Field: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman knows that I always give way to him, but perhaps he will allow me to finish this point.
About 6 million people now get help—one in three households. In 1979–80, the equivalent figure was 5 million. I am prepared to stand by that record. We have given more help to more people than the Labour Government ever did.

Mr. Field: Will the Minister remind the House that the White Paper on public expenditure shows that expenditure on housing benefit will fall by £1 billion?

Mr. Scott: This year we shall spend £50 million less on housing benefit, but that has to be set against an overall w expenditure of £5·2 billion. That is a minimal clawback of a benefit which was set inexorably to rise and which we believed it right to bring under control. Increases in benefit, increases in the expenditure on social security and increases in expenditure on housing benefit do not matter to the Opposition. To them, April 1988 was Paradise lost.
Today we heard not a word from the hon. Member for Livingston about an alternative strategy. With his incisive intellect, the hon. Gentleman knows the kinds of problems that those in control of the social security system face, but he made no attempt to free himself from the intellectual and political baggage with which the 1987 general election landed the Labour party—a muddled, inconsistent and expensive policy. He set out no new strategy. He simply harked back to what the Opposition regard as the good old days.
Of all the graffiti that have bedecked our walls in recent years, the one proclaiming that nostalgia is not what it used to be might best be used as the Labour party's slogan.
The reality under a Labour Government was, as Lord Barnett said, that when they were in office they spent money that they did not have, that they ended up in the arms of the International Monetary Fund and that they had to cut back, not enhance, the social security system. We have never been driven into that position and we do not intend to be.
In April 1988 we embarked on a new strategy. We said goodbye to over 20,000 paragraphs in the manual required to operate supplementary benefit. We said goodbye to the opportunities to be better off on benefit than in work. We said goodbye to an effective marginal tax rate of about 112 per cent. We also said goodbye to housing benefit supplement, the Byzantine bridge between two entirely different systems of help with housing costs for those in work and those not in work. The English language is rich in a variety of wise sayings. The saying that empty vessels make the most noise is the most accurate one to describe the Labour party. We said goodbye to many indefensible anomalies and extraordinary social security complexities which the last Labour Government had failed to tackle. We said goodbye to all those things—and good riddance.
I shall not pretend that there are no problems or dilemmas to be faced in remodelling social security. It is hard to achieve the right balance between providing a safety net for life's emergencies and creating disincentives to employment. It is hard to achieve a balance between the objective of targeting help on those most in need and the wish to avoid over-detailed and intensive means testing. As society changes, and as time goes by, we must constantly review and revise our judgments on these issues. We cannot indulge in the luxury of ignoring them, as the Opposition do.
I re-emphasise the point that the changes and the extra resources would not have been possible without steady growth in the economy, the tight control of inflation and a firm grip on public expenditure. Those were not qualities that were noticeable under the previous Labour Government. That is why we can spend more, not less, on social security. It is worth reminding the House that under this Government inflation over the past five years has been about the same as it was in a single year under the previous Labour Government.
I understand, of course, that the main thrust of the debate is on housing benefit, and it is right for me to set that within the context of the Government's wider policy on social security reform. I shall refer in a little more detail to the system that we have replaced. When we introduced changes to housing benefit, our objective was always to protect the poorest and neediest. Many families on low incomes who receive housing benefit will gain overall because of the more generous family credit scheme, so our reform of housing benefit reflects our overall approach to the reform of the system. We aim for a better targeted, simpler, system that helps those who are really in need, without encouraging dependence on the state—that is, the taxpayer. The old system was costly, complicated and random, and this Government have had the courage to tackle it.
Prior to April this year, 3 million householders on supplementary benefit were getting full rent and rate rebates paid by their local authorities. Another 3 million people on low incomes had their incomes judged by local authorities against a series of needs allowances. The amount of help that they received with rent and rates varied, depending on their individual circumstances. That


was the system that was criticised by the Supplementary Benefits Commission in 1976. The anomalies that were pointed out and the criticisms that were made were not tackled by the Labour Government, and it was left to us to introduce changes finally in 1983. However, the continuance of two separate means tests made the system difficult to describe, and even more complicated to administer, and it was difficult for claimants to understand. The system worked very badly indeed.
The problems were easy to identify and costs were rising fast, but the system still did not give enough help to those who really needed it. It insulated many people against the real costs of local services, and we continue to believe that accountability suffered as a consequence. Therefore, we introduced a new system, with common rules for the three income-related benefits, and the same income test for everyone. People on similar incomes are treated in the same way. We also introduced the system whereby benefits are calculated on the basis of net, rather than gross, income, and that means that ordinary people see a cash increase for extra money earned. The Labour Government never tackled that problem. People on income support will continue to receive the maximum help available, as will others on similar incomes.

Mr. John Battle: Will the Minister concede that many of us sought figures in the Green Paper "Reform of Social Security" that would show how the equalisation of benefits would work out, and that the only figure that the Government submitted showed a reduction in housing benefit? That was the only figure in the Green Paper. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is in the Green Paper?

Mr. Scott: We never made any secret of the fact that total expenditure on housing benefit was growing inexorably and that we thought it right to cut it back. We made that clear from the outset as we re-ordered our priorities in the overall system of social security. Although we have cut back expenditure very modestly, the reform of social security has meant that we are spending more on social security and are giving more help to those in greatest need. We have given almost £100 million extra to families through the income support structure, in which we have identified the real needs in society.

Mr. Tony Favell: Is it not a fact that many Opposition Members will not be happy until 100 per cent. of the population are dependent on the state or their town hall for housing?

Mr. Scott: I have to say that sometimes I have that feeling when I listen to speeches from the Opposition.
In my opening remarks I referred to the issues that face those who have the responsibility of office when they seek to change and reform systems in the sensitive area of social security. One of the most important is the pace at which change can be introduced. When we made our reforms in April this year we recognised that there was a need for transitional protection from the outset for the poorest in our community—those who receive supplementary benefit. In April we listened again to the reasoned and reasonable arguments that changes in housing benefit were too sharp for some vulnerable groups.
We were not forced into that, as the Opposition motion implies. We followed the promise that we had given the House on several occasions to monitor, review and, if necessary, to act if we saw that the benefit system was not operating as it should. We did that, and I repeat today that we intend to continue to do so. That commitment was honoured and led to the changes that were outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services on 27 April.
The changes showed that we could respond sensitively and quickly to areas of genuine concern about the operation of housing benefit, and we took swift action when we had identified what was necessary. We committed another £100 million to the already massive social security budget. My right hon. Friend then announced, less than 12 weeks ago, transitional payments to help up to 350,000 people. The first payment was sent out on 14 July and the unit set up to deal with applications on a national basis is now fully operational. It will quickly build up to optimum efficiency and output.
Any Opposition Member who has seen the application form for payments could not possibly—[HON. MEMBERS: "How many have gone out?"] I shall give hon. Members the figures. Thousands of them have been sent out and are available, and we shall make the process even simpler in future. Special arrangements have been introduced to deal with cases of urgency, and freepost and freeline services have been set up to provide help and advice to those who need it. Those services have been extensively used by the public and by many Opposition Members.

Mr. Alistair Darling: The form is very simple, but many people simply will not qualify for transitional payments. What will the Government do to help those who have lost out and who do not qualify under this miserable scheme?

Mr. Scott: I have already explained what the transitional protection scheme was designed to achieve, what it is achieving and what it will achieve in the near future. We have already run one national publicity campaign to encourage take-up for this very important protection. We shall launch another campaign later this week, which will run for two weeks. The advertisement will include a cut-out coupon so that people can receive an RR4 application form from the Department by return of post.
Despite the whingeing from the Opposition Benches, by any standards the arrangements for transitional protection have got off to an excellent start. In my letter to colleagues on 5 May I promised that freeline and freepost facilities would be put in place at once, and they were. We undertook to ensure that payments were made immediately to those in urgent need, and that has happened. The first general payments for housing benefit cases were promised for this month, and the first payments were made on 14 July. The next step is to ensure that applications are processed in the week when they are received. We are well organised to do that.
Yesterday I had the opportunity to visit the Glasgow unit. I spoke to a number of the 500 staff now in post there. They have been recruited and trained in record time to do that job and I was impressed by their commitment, their interest and the enthusiasm with which they are tackling the job. There was a feeling of drive, efficiency and commitment in the office. As a result of the applications


that have come in, the staff have already issued 50,000 inquiry forms to local authorities—[Interruption.] I thought that the hon. Member for Livingston was at pains not to criticise the civil servants who are doing that important job. The sneering by some of the hon. Members behind him at junior staff who are tackling the job ill becomes them.
About 50,000 inquiry forms have gone out to local authorities to provide the information that we need to process the claims. Of course we depend on local authorities' commitment to turning round those applications.

Miss Joan Lestor: rose——

Mr. Scott: Our target is to get up to date as quickly as possible with the processing of the applications.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Scott: I intend to set firm and tight targets for the processing of the applications, although, to an extent that remains in the hands of the individuals to apply promptly and the local authorities to turn round the applications quickly. For our part, in the transitional payments unit, we shall seek to meet those very tight targets and to respond to individual needs.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose——

Miss Lestor: rose——

Mr. Scott: I should have thought that we should get some credit for coming to the House to talk about a scheme that has been introduced to provide significant help to pensioners, the long-term sick and disabled, widows and families with children, but I should have known better
In my view, the Government have demonstrated a speedy and flexible response to large cash losses, but we have done that without deviating from the overall aim of providing a simple and straightforward system of housing benefit which is much better than that which it succeeded.

Miss Joan Lestor: After that speech, I do not think that we are in any danger that the phrase "incisive intellect" will be thrown around the Chamber. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and I were trying to ask the Minister a very simple question to help us with our own remarks: how many payments have been made to date under the transitional scheme? My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) raised that point. I believe his figures are correct and I have tried to check them. If a scheme is to be talked about in this way, it is essential that we should know exactly how it is working.
I take issue with the Minister on two other points. He made a distinction between the needy and the real needy. He spoke about those in "real need". People are either in need or they are not in need. His definition of the real needy means that large numbers of people who will not qualify for transitional payment will be left in poverty and need. The Minister did not deal with that.
The Minister made great play of the fact that the Government are spending more money now on social security than ever before. Of course they are, given the number of unemployed people in my constituency and

throughout the country. That is not something to be proud of. Incidentally, they would not have had that money to spend without the revenues from oil and from selling off many of the country's assets. [AN HON. MEMBER: "He is not listening."] Of course the Minister is not listening; that is part of his arrogance throughout the debate. He should not be proud of the fact that we are spending more money; he should be ashamed of the fact that the rise in poverty and unemployment in areas such as my constituency have forced us into this situation
I do not have very long, so I cannot read out all the cases, but this morning I spoke to my local DHSS office and my local city council. I have a large number of cases, which I shall be sending to the Minister; indeed, some have already been sent. They include the disabled, the elderly and one-parent families who are in desperate need and who have been badly affected by the changes in benefits, including housing benefit. As far as we can discover from the guidelines on the transitional benefits, insofar as they exist, those people will not qualify for those benefits
The Minister did not deal with a matter that concerns many of us—the fact that transitional payments will not include the 20 per cent. of housing benefit that people will lose, so the qualifying amount is actually higher
The Minister said that the scheme is working very well. This morning, I spoke to Salford city council. I understand that there is some pilot scheme in my area, but I am told that there is now a form to apply for the forms to start making applications for transitional payments. I remind the Minister that in my constituency, where the divide between the north and the south is very graphic, where industry declined over the years and where there is a large number of long-term unemployed people, the people who are receiving benefits are all in need. The Minister seems to have forgotten that the people were not receiving benefits that they did not need or to which they were not entitled. The people were already in poverty and already had very grave problems. Those other people have been very badly affected
I should like to draw the House's attention to a letter that I received today from Salford city council, asking me to draw this point to the attention of the House of Commons:
the increase in the number of tenants in rent arrears rose … by 6 per cent., which represented a rise in monetary arrears of £140,000
in the period in which we have had a reduction in housing benefits. I am asked to draw to the attention of the House
this increase in the amount of rent arrears, which is a direct result of the reduction in housing benefits which has made more tenants responsible for paying their water and general rates.
So the burden will be borne by many local authorities which are not in a position to bear it.
I could read out to the House many cases similar to those that were read out by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston. One particular case is very important. It involves a constituent with injury who claimed supplementary benefit in 1984 but was not entitled, as his income exceeded requirements, even though those included high rate heating addition and diet, the cost of extra baths and a lower-rate diet for his wife. However, he was awarded housing benefit and housing benefit supplement by the local authority. When housing benefit supplement was abolished, he was then entitled only to housing benefit. As a result, he was liable to pay approximately £10 a week more for rent and general rates. Income support replacing


supplementary benefit was not payable, as it was argued that his income exceeded requirements. Therefore, his total weekly reduction is now about £12 a week.
The DHSS in Salford said that this was very disturbing, but as far as the regulations are concerned, there is very little that it can do to counter it. I have asked whether he will be entitled to transitional payment, but I am told that on the basis of the guidelines he will not. There are many others, including pensioners and disabled people. A mentally handicapped person who is rehabilitating herself and has found a small job is now worse off than she would be had she remained in residential care. A pensioner receiving £40 a week retirement and industrial injury pension is now having to pay £15·90 towards his rent and rates instead of £1·74 before April.
I could go on reading out such cases, as I am sure we all could, but we have not gone around the country looking for them. Details arrive in our postbags, and they come to our constituency surgeries. I do not believe that Conservative Members have not experienced similar cases, and I do not understand why they are not defending their people. Right across the country, those who can least afford to meet the problems and pay the money are being discriminated against. It is an absolute disgrace.
As I said at the start, most of the people in that situation in my constituency were already in need. I object to the hon. Gentleman's distinction between "real need" and need: they were not scroungers. They were not getting something to which they were not entitled. By virtue of the kind of constituency that I represent, they were in need, are in need, and will continue to be in need.
The hon. Gentleman dealt with transitional payments in a cavalier fashion—as though they were flowing well and people's needs were being met. He did not answer the question about how many people had received transitional payments. He did not answer the question about what guidelines will determine what people are entitled to. Many people in my constituency and in other constituencies will be pushed into greater poverty. They were already in poverty, and that poverty will now be greater. As far as I can tell, despair is moving to deep distrust and misery. It is reminiscent of what happened in the 1930s. Poor people will get poorer, while those who have money will get richer. That is an absolute disgrace.

Mr. John M. Taylor: There are three acknowledged staples of life—food, clothing and housing. Food and clothing are predominantly provided by the private sector. There is variety, choice and good standards. There is a much larger public sector component in housing. That is why that staple has always been hedged about with political controversy and argument. It is part private, part public, and inevitably and understandably political. Among political contentions there have been disputes and debates about state and municipal intervention in the cost of housing. General assistance has taken two traditional forms. Tax relief on mortgage interest has benefited the home owner. Subsidised council housing has benefited the municipal tenant. Again, there is a kind of political counterpoint in the two general forms of housing assistance.

Mr. Jim Cousins: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that more than half of owner-occupiers do not benefit from mortgage interest relief? They are owner-occupiers, usually elderly and usually on low incomes, who bought houses way back in the past and have paid them off. Therefore, they do not benefit from mortgage interest relief, and are dependent upon the housing benefit system, in common with all the other people about whom the hon. Gentleman is about to talk.

Mr. Taylor: It might oblige the hon. Gentleman if I concede his contention that not all home owners have the benefit of mortgage interest tax relief. That point must be self-evident. I do not know the exact proportion. I was endeavouring to be fair to an Opposition Member and let him comment on my somewhat undeveloped remarks. I was merely giving the background to financial intervention in housing, and showing that it had taken an essentially political form. On the one hand, by their origin and development, certain benefits tended to favour home owners and, on the other hand, certain other kinds of assistance helped municipal tenants. They are general assistances.
Specific assistance, which is directed to the individual rather than to his ownership or tenancy, has grown out of rent and rate rebates that were initially administered by local authorities. Furthermore, in the earlier stages, various local authorities introduced rebates according to their own rules. There was a different pattern of rules for rent and rates rebates before they became part of a national structure. Another origin from which specific personal housing assistances were derived were housing and rental additions, which were part of the national assistance scheme. That was one of the original principles of the welfare state, and a precursor of what we now call supplementary benefit. Payments of specific help were intended for the poorest members of society, and quite rightly so, and they were invariably means-tested.
We can be sure of one thing, and that is that, with every proper and supportable intention, those who devised the systems to help the poorest people cannot possibly have contemplated that, by 1987–88, amid quite admirable levels of general prosperity, qualifiers for "the neediest need" would have increased to one third of the population. In the words of a satirical newspaper, "Shomething wrong, surely."
I admit that it is easy to point out that something is wrong. One can mock a regime by highlighting anomalies—some hon. Members have made careers out of it—but, by any admission, it is a great deal harder to replace an outworked system with a new one that will be proof against all the old criticisms, cost less to operate, be much simpler to understand, and command instant universal respect, acclaim and even affection. They never found El Dorado, and they will not find such a benefit system either.
Over the course of time, I have learnt that man-made benefit systems are inevitably arbitrary. It is because they are man-made. They follow no natural law, because there is none. Instead, they follow a series of definitions. That is as true of education grants as it is of invalidity allowances and housing benefits.
One critical thing about definitions is that they describe qualifiers, but that is not the most critical thing that they do. The most critical thing that they do is to describe and define non-qualifiers. That is the original sin of man-made


arbitrary benefit systems. Their public face—their appearance from the street—is one of instruments of exclusion. Some people are only just excluded at the margin, frontier or boundary of the definition. They are the truly marginal cases.
Woe betide anyone who thinks that protestations about marginal cases can be bought out or paid off by pushing the frontier outwards a little, slightly extending the definition, or moving the margin. All that one gets for that is a new, larger category of marginal cases who were previously resigned to being some distance from the definition—even content to be so —but who now see themselves as only just outside the adjusted definition. They are a new set of near-qualifiers, who resent what they are only just not getting.
It would surprise me if the Government expected to win battalions of friends by introducing benefit system reforms. But if it is the Government's realistic purpose to tackle systems that have outgrown their original Good Samaritan intention and strength, they will gain respect for doing so, and hon. Members will support their amendment in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: The Minister is popular and respected in the House, even if hon. Members do not always agree with his policies, but in response to the characteristically excellent and incisive speech of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) —this is an important issue to thousands of people—his speech was an utter disgrace. It was a disgrace to churn out that hackneyed cliché-ridden trash and to give so little information about the workings of the transitional payments centre. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have written to him daily on this matter, so he must be aware that a tremendous amount of anxiety is deeply felt by many thousands of people. He did himself and his Department—what is left of his Department—less than justice.
Although the Minister did not have the gall to refer to the amendment too much, it is one—although the Government have made a complete shambles of the issue —that applauds, welcomes, commends and congratulates. I wonder sometimes how Ministers have the gall to do such things.
Presumably the House appreciates that it is being asked to applaud a cut of £540 million in housing benefit. Presumably Conservative Back Benchers are welcoming the fact that many poor people have to start paying 20 per cent. of their rates contribution, and want to commend the fact that the capital limit that has been introduced, along with the taper that is now in place, will leave many pensioners who would otherwise have qualified for support ineligible. No doubt they are willing to "congratulate"—in the words of the motion—a transitional payments system which had to be introduced because of the original shambles and revolt.
From what the Minister said, we have no clearer idea how long that transitional protection will last. That was a specific question put to the Minister, which he skated around completely. He was asked how many payments had been made, but he did not tell us. If press reports are to be believed and it will take some 31 more weeks at present processing levels to meet the full payments, what will happen to those people whose transitional payments

may not be fully met until next February, and who may be affected by further changes a few weeks after that? None of those questions was dealt with by the Minister. I hope that when he makes a further contribution we shall hear more.
The transitional protection scheme was designed to limit the losses of some groups of claimants—for example, the elderly, the sick and those with children. In other words, there will be no extra help for young single people. The Government's thinking comes over time and again —they believe that such people should not qualify for help, because they should be working.
We heard another illuminating speech from Ministers in the Scottish Grand Committee, and the hon. Member for Livingston referred to another one a few weeks ago. If the Minister had been at the Committee, he would have heard the figures quoted for job opportunities for young people. For every 50 youngsters coming out of school in Strathclyde, there is one job. How can it be unnatural for them not to be in employment? The Government appear to miss the fact that unemployment continues to bite deep.
Secondly, the Minister did not deal with the fact that the loss is to be limited to£2·50. It must be said again and again that that £2·50 maximum does not include any loss from the 20 per cent. rates contribution. It is much more tightly drawn than many of those who have applied, or who are seeking to apply at the moment, realise They suspect that they will have a much more significant cushion in terms of their benefit loss than will prove to be the case.
I wonder to what extent the second round of the advertising campaign—I must have missed the first one —will underline that reality. That would avoid a second blow to morale when people make the application, find out about the centre, expect a transitional payment to come through, and then find out that it is limited strictly to the housing benefit implications and will not cover the other losses caused by the social security changes.
Perhaps this is a matter for a written question, but I wonder how much the DHSS is spending on those two advertising campaigns in comparison with how much was spent on the privatisation of British Telecom or the British Airways advertising campaign.
I very much endorse the comments made by the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) about the dubious and distasteful distinction that is now being introduced between the needy, and the non-needy, or the legitimate needy and the less needy, when considering applications for transitional protection payments. The Minister makes a face, but his speech was shot through with such a distinction.
I shall take as an example one of my constituents. A Mrs. Corbett, who lives in Invergordon, came to see me recently. Mrs. Corbett has had housing benefit withdrawn. She now gets only £2·26 a week housing benefit towards her rent. Therefore, out of her £62·11 take-home pay as a caretaker in a community centre, she has to meet her rent of £17·67, minus £2·26 which she is losing, and all her rates. That equals £22·45. Her available income to spend is £62·11 minus £22·45, which works out at £39·66
If Mrs. Corbett chose not to go to work, she would get a weekly allowance of £33·40. On top of that, all her rent would be met, as would 18 per cent. of her rates. Her weekly disposable income would therefore be £33·40, minus 20 per cent. of her rates—£1·24—which would give her £32·13 a week. For working a 40-hour week in a


low-paid job, and looking after a young family as a single parent, she is the princely sum of £7·53 per week better off. However, that does not include her travel costs to and from work. We were told that the Government introduced this system to help people in that position—people whom the previous Secretary of State referred to as those who are poor with families.
Mrs. Corbett could not believe it when this scheme was introduced. She wrote me a letter in which she stated the position rather well:
Can this really mean that someone with a good salary and any amount of savings is to be asked for only £2·26 more per week (the full rent and rates) than myself?
The answer is yes. How the Minister can be sanguine about that I do not know.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: I appreciate the problems that the reforms have brought about for some individuals, but I cannot understand what general point of principle the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) is putting forward. Unless he is prepared to say that there will be no rate of withdrawal, regardless of income, and he is therefore proposing a sort of basic earning guarantee which is non-taxable and unrelated to income, we shall always be faced with the problem of tapers and withdrawal of benefit, which will produce high marginal rates, which will be a combination of tax and withdrawal of benefit. The aim of the reforms is to reduce those difficulties to below 100 per cent. Surely that is an improvement.

Mr. Kennedy: The principle which I am enunciating, which I suspect is shared by Conservative Members with guilty consciences, is simply that social security reforms should not hit the poor, who are at the weakest end of the income spectrum. That is the simple principle which should guide any Government with a sense of morality. The case of Mrs. Corbett is indefensible and was a direct result of the changes. She was exactly the sort of person that was supposed to be helped
For the longer term, I support full integration of the tax and benefits systems and the allocation of credits which are withdrawable as income rises, so that some of the worst marginal effects would be mitigated far more effectively than under the present system. The Government, however, have not seen fit to pursue that course of action.

Mr. Scott: I am not sure which party the hon. Gentleman is a member of at the moment, but the predecessor party which supported the Labour Government in office, and Opposition Members who were making such a noise earlier, supported a system in which there was a combination of tax and withdrawal of benefit of 112 per cent. We have at least got rid of that nonsense.

Mr. Kennedy: I think that the Government have got it down to 85 per cent. withdrawal in certain categories and 65 per cent. for most others. That is an improvement, certainly, but I do not accept the principle on which the new structure is established. I and my right hon. and hon. Friends opposed it in the previous Parliament and we shall continue to oppose it and argue for our alternative.
I have a second example of a problem. It arises because, lo and behold, the Inverness office has had a computer

breakdown. That is hardly unheard of, but as a result, it has been impossible to assess many people's entitlement to transitional protection
Another constituent —a widowed pensioner with an income of £53 a week—has written to me. At the moment, she pays an extra £10 into her rent account each fortnight in the hope that it, with her old rent payment and her new housing benefit entitlement, will cover the new figure. Given her age, she could well be entitled to transitional protection if the council ever manages to work out how much housing benefit she has lost. It is unable to do that, however, because of computer problems.
My constituent writes:
I have been paying £10 approximately extra but it is hard going and this very long delay has changed me from a happy person to an anxious old woman … I desperately want to go to visit my elder sister who is ill in Aberdeen but want to be clear before I go. I am a widow over 70 and unfortunately just above the magic figure which would entitle me to supplementary benefit so fare worse than most. My total income is £53 and with heating so necessary in this cold glen every penny has to count.
There are thousands of such people. Dozens come to my constituency surgery each weekend. They are confused, upset and dismayed about what they have lost and what they may still lose. Many are under the false impression that the £2·50 cushion is applied generally and is not drawn strictly for housing benefit. Many are confused because they do not know what they are eligible for. They find it almost impossible to believe the loss that they have already suffered.
The Minister has not answered the salient questions asked by the hon. Member for Livingston—how many payments have there been so far, for how long will the transitional arrangements go on, and what happens to the payments that are caught up with early next February? What steps is the Department taking to salvage this sorry and, from the point of view of the lack of political principle involved, increasingly sordid move towards changing housing benefit, with all the attendant misery?

Mr. Michael Irvine: Before last April's reforms, one household in three received housing benefit. That statistic shows eloquently that housing benefit was being applied wrongly and that it was being distributed too widely and too indiscriminately.
It was absurd that a person with £30,000 in a current account could still be entitled to housing benefit. It was absurd that a person could have £20,000 in, for example, a low-yielding Japanese unit trust and still be entitled to housing benefit. It was unjust that capital was not taken into account.
Housing benefit cried out for reform. Reform was not just necessary£it was imperative. We needed a redirection of benefits towards those people in greatest need. Such a process inevitably means that some will get less. There is, at that point, a political dilemma. Alterations involve grave risk of political unpopularity.
By deciding to do something about the problem, and by facing the dilemma, the Government have shown high political courage. It is all very well for Opposition Members to mock the Government and to accuse them of callousness and hard-heartedness, but I should have a lot more respect for the Opposition's arguments if they acknowledged that there was a problem and a need for reform. Instead of approaching the issue positively,


however, Opposition Members only put forward the solution of never-ending waterfall of additional public expenditure.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully. He seems to be arguing that, simply because of the number of people who receive housing benefit, there is a need for reform. Has he noted that one third more people get mortgage interest tax relief? What proposals does he have for reform of that system?

Mr. Irvine: The hon. Lady is trying to deflect me from my argument. As much as one household in three received housing benefit. That shows that the benefit was not being directed effectively.

Mr. David Winnick: As the hon. Gentleman is arguing that people who do not deserve assistance have received it—an argument which I do not accept in respect of housing benefit—can he tell us whether he has ever received tax relief on mortgage interest? If he has, has he refused it on the grounds that, as a lawyer and a Member of the House of Commons, he does not require it? That being the case, did he refund the money to the Exchequer?

Mr. Irvine: I have received tax relief on mortgage interest. The hon. Gentleman is well away from the point that I am arguing. I am attacking Opposition Members because——

Mr. Winnick: Why did the hon. Gentleman take the money?

Mr. Irvine: —instead of making constructive arguments and acknowledging that there is a problem, they are entirely negative, try to deflect the thrust of the argument and resort to jeers, abuse and personal innuendo. That will not do.
In their heart of hearts, the thinking element of the Opposition, in so far as there is a thinking element in the Opposition, acknowledge the need for reform. They also acknowledge that any reform involves deciding priorities and making hard choices about how to allocate benefits. Such changes involve the danger of political unpopularity.
One of the most refreshing features of the Government throughout their nine years in office has been their readiness to face short-term political unpopularity and grasp the nettle of reform to attain necessary, desirable and long-term objectives. The House is debating another instance of that today.
Inevitably, when there is a major reform on the scale of that which was introduced last April, certain hardships and injustices will come to light. Opposition Members have referred to the volume of constituency correspondence that they have received and to the fact that Conservative Members must have received similar letters. I am sure that we have all received them and that we have all made our points to the Government. What is more, the Government listened and, within a month of the reforms coming into operation, announced the transitional arrangements. Far from being a sign of weakness or retreat, that was a sign of the Governments strength and readiness to be flexible and to adapt. Having listened to their Back Benchers, the Government announced the transitional arrangements and, moreover, directed those

transitional measures rightly so as to give protection to pensioners, disabled people, low-income families with children, and single parents.
While congratulating the Government on their political courage, may I, however, say to my hon. Friend the Minister that there is no doubt that some people—a minority—have suffered sudden and proportionately severe reductions in their income levels and standards of living as a result of the introduction of the changes. It is a fair point that a reduction of £7 or £8 a week on an income of £70 or £80 is a substantial hardship. I acknowledge that.
The Government must have in mind two essential points. First, it is important that the Government should press ahead with all possible speed to implement the arrangements for transitional protection. I am glad that the transitional protection unit has been set up and is now in operation. It is important that the unit is given all the forresources that it needs to operate effectively.
Secondly, it is essential that the Government remember that there are some people on modest incomes who, for one reason or another, fall just outside the qualification for transitional protection. In recent months I have sent details of cases where that is so, or where it seems to be so, to Ministers for their consideration.
Careful monitoring of the effects of the changes that have taken place in housing benefit is essential. There are bound to be further instances of hardship and further injustices that require to be remedied. However, if there is careful monitoring and identification of such cases, and if injustices are remedied promptly, the underlying merits of the Government's reforms will become more speedily apparent. The Goverment would then end up reaping long-term benefits from their courage in facing short-term unpopularity and taking the difficult decisions necessary to implement the reforms.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: This morning I received some staggering information about soaring rent debt in local authority housing in my constituency. Because I received this information this morning, I tried to raise the problem under a Standing Order No. 20 application, but was advised that I might be called to speak in the debate.
Before April and the so-called reforms of housing benefit, the record of rent arrears in my constituency was comparatively good, despite the fact that the economy has been through troubled times, and despite the fact that we are an area of high unemployment and low wages. Good counselling, a good committee and a good housing management kept rent arrears at a reasonable level, considering the poverty and distress that people face.
However, since April, when the Government introduced the changes, there has been a serious escalation in rent debt. On I April the current debt outstanding stood at £468,582. In the 10 weeks that followed, including one free week, rent debt soared to over £639,000. That increase in debt of over one third was almost certainly due to the reductions in housing benefit.

Mr. Irvine Patnick: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Mahon: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman should make his own speech.

Mr. Patnick: rose———

Mrs. Mahon: No, it is a short debate and I want to get some facts on the record.
A similar pattern of escalating debt is evident throughout the country. It is important that the responsibility for such an increase falls squarely where it belongs—at the feet of the Government. In Calderdale, after 48 weeks of the financial year ending April 1988, 11,344 people—76 per cent. of council tenants—received housing benefit, totalling £236,580. By the 11th week of this financial year 10,077 people—68 per cent. of tenants —received housing benefit, totalling £220,076. That is a loss, not only to tenants, but to the local economy, because that money is not available for other things. Therefore, the level of housing benefit has fallen despite the fact that there were rent and rate increases in 1988 which mask the full level of the reduction.
Those shocking figures do not include housing association tenants, of whom there are many. There is no doubt that housing associations have suffered a similar increase in rent arrears. Many elderly people, and many people who fall into special categories, need to live in housing association accommodation. In fact, there are specific schemes for them.
I should like to read out a couple of cases and to give some figures of some of the people whom the Minister claims to have protected. We know that 6,000 tenants now have to pay a weekly water rate charge, plus 20 per cent. of their general rates. Those are the protected people, but they have to pay. The capital cut-off point was £6,000—it is now £8,000—and the national income from capital calculations for persons with over £3,000 has affected about 1,000 rent rebate claims. Steeper taper adjustments of 65p for rent rebate and 20p for rates rebate applied to every pound of excess income over income support levels have meant reduced entitlement for about 3,000 tenants. I repeat that the people who have lost all that enjoyed the Minister's protection. About 400 single parents not on income support have had their benefit entitlement reduced because single parents are no longer treated as couples when benefit entitlement is assessed. None of those people has £30,000 in the bank, which is what the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine) hinted.
A single male, aged 24, recently came to my surgery. He is employed on a Manpower Services Commission scheme for three days a week. Before April he paid £24·26 rent and received a rebate of £15·19. After April his rent was £26·02. He is worse off by £16·95 per week. That is a substantial reduction by any stretch of the imagination.
I also have the tragic case of a 20-year-old who is unemployed and is worse off by £17·55 per week. He is now in serious rent arrears and is before the county court for repossession. That young man had to leave home because of the depressing situation there. Those are the people whom the Minister claims he has protected. He should be ashamed of himself.
My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) already described the difficulties with the transitional arrangements. According to the information that I received this morning from my local authority, it is facing many problems with people complaining that the forms are difficult to understand. The housing staff in my local authority have concluded that the forms appear to be designed to deter people from applying for benefit. They are under no illusion about that.
I do not know whether we will have any impact on the Government, and I do not believe that they will make the

transitional arrangements work to the benefit of the poor. I believe that they are designed to do the opposite. I believe that these arrangements are part and parcel of another attack on local authority housing. Perhaps that was the bonus that the Minister handed to the Prime Minister and to the Minister for Housing and Planning.
The housing benefit reforms represent an attack on local authorities as providers of public housing. Any loss as a result of the write-off of arrears must be borne by the housing revenue account. Obviously the reduction in rent income adversely affects a council's cash flow. Ultimately, that will lead to a loss of interest on balances and, therefore, to rent increases

Mr. Patnick: rose——

Mrs. Mahon: I have already said that I will not give way. This is a short debate and the hon. Gentleman can make his own speech.
The housing benefit reforms will damage the provision of local authority housing and will also damage housing associations, which the Government purport to want to help.
The Minister has made the outrageous claim that he wants to protect the poor and that the reforms are intended to do that. The poor know that they are worse off. The young man who I shall see in my constituency next week knows that he will be homeless and that he will not have a roof over his head. People who are getting further and further into debt are aware of that possibility. Because one is poor and on an extremely low income, it does not mean that one is brain-damaged or mentally inadequate. People know that they are receiving less money. The Minister should cease to adopt a hypocritical stance and stop talking about reforms, because doing so insults the dignity of people who are in serious debt and it also insults the intelligence of hard-working housing officials and councillors who are trying to cope with the disgraceful increase in debt that the Minister has deliberately triggered.

Mr. Tony Favell: My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), in an elegant speech, spoke of the three staples of food, clothing and shelter and the danger of allowing the state to assume responsibility for them.
My hon. Friend's speech reminded me of a conversation that I had with a German boy whom I recently took round the Houses of Parliament. We got on to the inevitable subject of the unification of Germany. I asked him if he thought that that was likely and he said that he thought that it was extremely unlikely. On being asked why, he told me that a completely different philosophy exists in East Germany from that in West Germany. He said that 40 years of Socialism had completely changed the East German people. Although the East Germans originally came from the same stock and spoke the same language, he thought it highly unlikely that the unification would take place. I asked him why he had come to that conclusion, and he told me about two boys who had recently joined his school after coming over the border from East Berlin with their families.
At first those two boys were absolutely delighted to be in West Germany and thought that people were better off, that housing was better, that the standard of living was


better, that they had a great future before them and that things were much brighter and more cheerful. However, gradually they became more depressed because their family background was one of complete dependency on the state. The West German boy had come to the conclusion that those two boys would go back to the grey, drab life from which they had come because of the way in which they and their families had been oppressed for the Conditions in our country are completely different from those in East Germany. In terms of housing—one of the three staples mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull—almost 64 per cent. of the population own their own homes.

Mr. Battle: It is 68 per cent.

Mr. Favell: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) for his help.
Despite the fact that 68 per cent. of the population own their homes, one third of all households depend upon housing benefit for help towards the payment of their rent and rates. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security recently asked: where is the sense in two thirds of the people supporting one third of households to meet their housing costs?
The figures are bad enough for the entire country, but in certain parts of the country the position is far worse. In Manchester, for example, 57 per cent. of all households are receiving housing benefit. In Liverpool, no less than 81 per cent. of council house tenants receive rent and rate rebates. That means that more than four fifths of council tenants in Liverpool receive housing benefit. They are dependent upon the town hall and the state for the most basic human need, shelter. Because they are dependent and unable to move they are held capitive within their grey surroundings. What a joy that is to their Left-wing Socialist masters, but what misery for those dependent upon them.
Those people, deterred from work lest they lose their housing benefit and unable to save to provide for themselves, are caught in a vicious circle of dependency and are enslaved by the masters of Liverpool.
I welcome the first brave steps away from housing benefit, away from state subsidy of housing costs and towards a greater concentration upon family credit. That will encourage poorer families to look for and to stay in work, and eventually it will enable them to escape from their grey, drab housing estates in Liverpool and the other northern cities that I know so well.

Mr. Eric. S. Heffer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Favell: No.
With a major upheaval such as the reform of the housing benefit system, there have been some hardship cases and it is to the Governments great credit——

Mr. Heffer: rose——

Mr. Favell: No, I shall not give way because I wish to develop my argument.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman does not know anything about Liverpool.

Mr. Favell: The hon. Gentleman has just entered the Chamber.

Mr. Heffer: So what? I heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Favell: My constituency also happens to be on the Mersey, but my constituents do not depend on Socialist masters to provide for all. Four fifths of council tenants in my area do not receive housing benefit because we have an independence culture and the people are happier. Unemployment in my constituency is now under 7 per cent. Such are the differences between a town further up the Mersey and Liverpool, where the people who run that city insist on having the local population dependent upon them because that keeps them in their fat jobs in the town hall.

Mr. Battle: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the unemployed should have their housing benefit cut to price themselves into work? Is that the logic of his argument?

Mr. Favell: The logic of my argument is to encourage people to go out to work rather than to stay at home.

Mr. Battle: Where are they going to work?

Mr. Favell: It is to the Government's great credit that they have recognised the hardship cases. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has said that the surgeries of Opposition Members have been packed with people bemoaning their loss of housing benefit, but in the previous breath he was bemoaning the lack of people claiming transitional relief. The only conclusion that I can draw from that is that fewer people are dissatisfied with their lot than the hon. Gentleman would have us believe.
I was glad to learn from my hon. Friend of the Government's determination to continue to roll back the sea of housing benefit, which now reaches one in three households in the United Kingdom. I have already mentioned the unemployment trap in places such as Liverpool and Manchester, which are close to my constituency, but such unemployed people will be relieved by the doubling of family credit.
Housing benefit has other unwelcome effects. For example, as much as 57 per cent. of the population of Manchester depend upon housing benefit to pay their rates. Therefore, there is absolutely no incentive for that town hall to keep its spending down. For that reason, I also welcome the introduction of the 20 per cent. payment of the community charge, which will be paid for by everyone. That will control spending. It will bring sense to our town halls; and the sooner it is introduced, the better. I shall have no hesitation in supporting my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Lobbies tonight.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Like other Opposition Members—if not Conservative ones—I have talked to people in my surgery, who are in tears, who wonder how they will cope with the severe loss of the income that they used to get in housing benefit. Some of them have asked me to explain why this is happening, because they cannot quite believe it. I shall send a copy of today's Hansardto every one of them. Then they will understand why this is happening—when they read the speeches made by Conservative Members, whose conduct hardly merits the description of "honourable". They inflict misery on people who have done nothing to deserve it.
We have heard how hard it is to achieve the right balance, and that the objective of the Government is to protect the poorest. I shall spend a few minutes talking about a mere sample of the hardship cases that I have


heard of in my surgery. These people are only a few of the large number of losers in Maryhill and other constituencies. The Government have said that they aim their benefits at those who need them most. I know of a wide variety of people in all sorts of need. Who will benefit if they do not?
I shall use people's initials, because some of them have expressed the fear that if I name them in public they will incur some sort of disbenefit. That shows the sort of mentality that people get into when they are desperately poor and do not know where the next penny to buy a loaf of bread will come from. They fear to raise their cases because of the sort of people who make up this Government.
Mrs. S, a widow on a pension, will have to find an extra £49·60 a month to pay rent and rates. I know of two couples who are losing their higher pension premium on benefit supplements. One of those couples used to be on invalidity benefit. They changed to the old-age pension, so they are denied the higher pension premium and will be worse off by £48 a month. Another couple, have lost their housing benefit supplement and two chronic sickness allowances. They will be worse off to the tune of £37·80 a month. These people are already on very low incomes. There are pensioners in my constituency who are losing anything from £17·36 a month to £66·20 a month—not the £7 or £8 a week of which a Conservative Member spoke earlier.
One man had a distinguished war service. He proudly showed me the commendation with which he left the Army at the end of the second world war. He loses £38 a month. He told me—he could hardly control his voice because he was shaking with anger and very upset—that this was the reward he got for serving his country and being a hero years ago. Now he was being treated like this.
The Government talk about pensioners who have savings over the limit. One couple have a whole £3,000 —a fortune. That is nothing to many Conservative Members, who have their profits from the City and from other businesses on top of their salaries as Members of Parliament. This couple received the £3,000 as a lump sum after a recent retirement. They will have to find an extra £23.60 a month.
I shall now give some examples drawn from the single unemployed. One such person, on income support, is a private tenant in the much vaunted private sector, with a private landlord. He used to receive a sizeable housing benefit but now finds he has much more to pay. He will have to find another £70 a month merely to keep his private landlord in the better standard of living to which he is accustomed.
A single pregnant unemployed woman will lose the transitional protection following the birth of her child, and will have £10 a week extra with which to bring up the baby. As was said earlier, that is the price of a small round in the Bar of the House, and it is the amount with which she will have to bring up her child.
Let us consider the mentally ill and handicapped. There are people in a housing association in my constituency which is especially intended for the mentally handicapped. They will lose benefit because the extra services no longer count towards housing benefit.
I could multiply these examples, but I also want to mention people who have been in receipt of industrial injury benefit. A disabled pensioner had an accident at work and could no longer be employed. He will have to find an extra £74·80 a month. A widow of a man who was injured at work and who eventually died from his injuries now finds that she will have to pay £99·07 more a month. The worst case of all that has come to my attention is that of a man who is disabled and retired following an accident at work. He will have to find an extra £102·36 a month ——

Mr. Greg Knight: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Fyfe: I will not give way; but I will tell the hon. Gentleman something. I am not here to engage in a polite debate, as if this were university debating club. I am here to speak for my constituents, who have no voice of their own—but it will be heard today. I urge my hon. Friends not to make fine speeches—they are wasted on Conservative Members. They should just list case after case of the kind of hardship that people are suffering. They should give the House the facts. The Government keep on saying that there must be balances, that some will benefit and some lose. We are listing case after case of those who lose——

Mr. Knight: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Fyfe: I shall not. I have no time for the likes of people who can do this to the poorest among us. They can go and make their own speeches.
If all these people are losing, who gains? We should all speak for our constituents who have no voice of their own. El Dorado? That bunch on the Conservative Benches must be joking. It is far from that: it is a living hell for the people we are talking about.

Ms. Diane Abbott: Conservative Members have tried to justify the changes in the social security system, particularly the changes in the payment of housing benefit, by complaining that one in three households get housing benefit. When we point out to them that almost one in two households get mortgage tax relief, they have nothing to say. It is entirely characteristic of the Government that when the poor get money it is a problem, but when the rich do, it is a political advance. If the problem is so serious—if it is an ipso facto problem—why have the Government nothing to say about the arrangements for paying mortgage tax relief?
A Conservative Member bravely said—it may have been an attempt at a pun—that the Government would reap long-term benefit from the changes. I do not know about that, but on the evidence of the hundreds of people who have written to me or seen me in my surgery I think that people in Hackney will reap long-term proverty from the changes—in many cases, ill-deserved poverty.
Many of those who come to see me are pensioners. We have heard many sneering remarks about the poor from Conservative Members, but many of the people who have suffered under these housing benefit changes are pensioners who have contributed all their lives to occupational pensions and who now find themselves, despite all the brave words about transitional protection, having to pay £5, £6 or £7 a week more out of incomes as tiny as £30 or £40. What long-term benefit will accrue to


them? It is as if 50 or 60 years of work, service and contributions count for nothing. They speak of paying in for many years and now having the money taken away from them.
I should like to put some questions on behalf of those people mentioned by my hon Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe)—people who cannot speak for themselves. Exactly how many staff are in post in the unit in Glasgow? When can the people who have applied up to the end of this month expect to be paid? People in Hackney want to know the detail about the operation of the transitional unit. While the Government are making press statements and statements in the House, people in my constituency are running up rent arrears, and now they cannot pay. Old people are terrified by the threat of eviction. They do not want to know about the Government's press release but about how the unit is working and how soon they can expect to get their money.
I should like to know exactly how long the transitional rent arrangements will apply. That is another question put to me by people in Hackney. I understand that there was a recent announcement about new protection under the arrangements for people on income support. Who will be able to claim protection? There is a great deal of confusion about that.
In my constituency, 5,000 people have lost over £5 in their heating allowances because in the past Hackney used its discretion and was quite generous to old people in its heating payments. What will be the cost of newspaper advertising and the printing of the forms for these arrangements? Presumably the announcement means that the forms will have to be reprinted and new advertisements placed. Would that money not be better spent on housing benefit? Do the Government propose to repeat their advertising campaign?
It is all very well for Conservative Members to talk in generalities and to speak about incentives to go out to work. They talk in high-arching terms of the enterprise culture. Hackney is one of the poorest areas in Britain and I cannot talk in generalities, in wide-ranging terms or in the abstract. I can only talk about the hundreds of cases of real loss and poverty and about the fears that I deal with as a result of the Government's change in housing benefit. I want specific answers to specific questions, because public relations rhetoric will not put food on the tables of my pensioners in Hackney.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) introduced an unfortunate party political note into the debate, when he sought to advance the proposition that, because very few of us were in the Chamber to listen to the debate Conservative Members did not care about the poor. I apologise to the House for having to pop in and out of the Chamber. That was because constituents and others had come to see me about a variety of matters, basically to do with the Barlow Clowes affair, and I felt that it was right to see them. I should like to correct the record. A majority of Conservative Members are in the Chamber at the moment, and to advance propositions such as that advanced by the hon. Gentleman does not help us to understand the problems of poverty or to cure the inefficiencies of the social security system. We have a long way to go to achieve that.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) did not allow my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) to intervene in her speech. We are not here just to make set speeches into microphones. The hon. Lady should seek membership of inferior assemblies, such as the one in Strasbourg, if she wishes to operate in that way. My hon. Friend wanted to put a point to her and she refused to allow him to do so. If we all took that attitude it would mean the end of parliamentary debate.
I listened to the cases that the hon. Lady described and would have liked to ask her how many of those cases have been reconsidered in the light of the transitional arrangements that have been announced. It seems likely that the transitional arrangements will cover a great many of them.

Mr. William McKelvey: A great many people in Scotland applied for transitional benefits, but encountered difficulties because no forms were available. Eventually they got the forms, and two weeks ago I asked a Scottish Minister to name one person who had received a transitional payment, which, after all, is to relieve hardship. He could not supply one name. I put down a parliamentary question asking for the names or the numbers of those in Scotland who had received transitional benefit. The Minister wrote to me saying that he could not do so at the time and that he would reply further at the earliest opportunity. He has failed to do so. May I assume that no one in Scotland has received transitional benefit and that people are suffering hardship because of massive reductions in benefit? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can answer that question.

Mr. Hamilton: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is criticising the public sector and thinks that we would do better to contract out or privatise. It may well be that he is correct. I am not in possession of the facts, and I am not sure whether he is. I am not prepared to attempt to answer the question that he asked without hearing the other side from the Minister concerned.
It is extraordinary that, when speaking about the effect of the housing benefit reforms, Opposition Members are unable to agree that the social security reviews have bestowed significant advantages on people. Nobody denies that under these reforms there are losers. Constituents have come to me with problems similar to those described by Opposition Members. I am not unaware of the problems of poverty, as Opposition Members seek to say.
When we look at the overall effect of the reforms, the whole package—and that is the only fair way to look at it —we see that nearly nine out of 10 people on benefit are now receiving the same amount as before, or are getting more money. Even after taking account of inflation, 57 per cent. of those on income-related benefits, such as housing benefit, are better off, or no worse off, including 81 per cent. of sick and disabled people, 77 per cent. of couples with children and 60 per cent. of single parents. Although there have been losers, there are significant gainers, and they outnumber those who have lost.

Mr. Tony Banks: No doubt the hon. Gentleman accepts that we have not made up these examples. We are only responding to people who come to us and say that they are worse off. We take no pleasure from giving these examples. Will the hon. Gentleman tell me why anyone previously on supplementary benefit should be made worse off? Even if


there were only one, that would be grounds for complaint. He knows that many thousands are worse off, Why should anyone be worse off?

Mr. Hamilton: I shall come to that later in my speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine) gave cogent examples of cases where, under the old rules, it could hardly be fairly stated that all recipients of benefit were justified in claiming it. I am not saying that individual examples should be quoted across the Chamber, but some people might be described as deserving cases. In any big reform of the social security system, if we guarantee that no recipient will lose, we will not be able to make sensible reforms that introduce more accurate targeting according to need. Unless we face the problems that the Government have at least partially faced, we shall not be able to sustain the system of social security that has been built up over the years in an ad hoc way without any centralised thought behind it and with very little rationale.

Mr. Robert Hayward: Does my hon. Friend agree that the changes to which he is referring emanate from a level of expenditure by the state that is dramatically higher than the level that we inherited in 1978–79? When we are talking about the changes, we must bear in mind the massive improvements that the Government have introduced over the past few years.

Mr. Hamilton: I entirely agree. Opposition Members talk of savage cuts in the social security budget, but they must be totally unaware that this year the social security budget is in excess of £50,000 million. Even after the changes that have been announced, although we are saving about £600 million on housing benefit, £650 million extra is being spent on family credit and income support. We are seeking—no one is saying that we shall succeed in every case—to target the expenditure more accurately on those who are most in need.

Mrs. Beckett: With respect to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward), if they go back to the Whips Office they will find that they have been given the brief for the debates that we had last year and the year before, not the brief for the speeches that they should be making today.
Let me correct the figures given by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), which are completely inaccurate. There is no way in which there are more gainers than losers from the so-called reforms. Even the figures given by the hon. Gentleman for people who stand still are inaccurate, although I accept that they are Government figures, so I do not altogether blame the hon. Gentleman for that. However, his figures for increased expenditure on family credit assume, for example, a vastly greater take-up of family credit. That is not money being spent now; that is money that the Government say will be spent. In fact, the take-up of family credit is running at half what the Government expected, so all the hon Gentleman's figures for increased spending are totally illusory and flawed. I suggest that he goes back to his hon. Friends in the Whips' Office and has a word with them about the Trade Descriptions Act.

Mr. Hamilton: I cannot accept what the hon. Lady says, because the Government have laid down a planning total that is available for spending on social security benefits if

those who are entitled to them take them up. I fully accept that in the past the take-up rate on many social security benefits has been inadequate. That has been one of the products of the complexity of the system. People simply could not understand the benefits to which they were entitled. That has been one of the primary causes of poverty. It is not that Governments of all persuasions have not wanted to assuage poverty, but that the huge, conglomerate social security system that has grown up ad hoc over the years has become far too complex for ordinary people to understand. They are intimidated by it.

Mr. Greg Knight: Is there not another point at issue, which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) did not address, namely, that some of the examples given to the House tonight have been of people with savings? Will my hon. Friend tell the House why someone who has substantial savings in excess of £8000 should look to the taxpayer before using his or her own resources?

Mr. Hamilton: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
I confess some astonishment at the remarks of the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) in that respect, because the proposition that she appeared to be advancing was that, regardless of the level of savings, a person should be entitled to housing benefit and there should be no withdrawal rates or tapers of any kind. If ever there was an anti-Socialist proposition, it seems to me that that is it. I would welcome the hon. Lady to our side of the House with pleasure, but it appears to me rather peculiar for somebody of her political persuasion to imply that if a person has savings he or she would still qualify for the benefit when there are people on low incomes with no capital who are inadequately provided for at the moment.

Ms. Abbott: Will the hon. Gentleman accept two points? First, no Opposition Member is saying that there is no level of savings at which a person's housing benefit should be reviewed. We are drawing the Government's attention to the failings of the taper currently in operation. That is not a party political point. All the interested voluntary organisations have made similar representations to the Government.
Secondly, will the hon. Gentleman use his imagination and consider the state of mind of people in their 60s and 70s who, all their lives, have been taught that they must save against a rainy day? They are now faced with a Government who tell them that they have no option but to run down their pittance of a saving. If the hon. Gentleman has not met those terrified old people, I have. It makes no sense for a Government who make a virtue of thrift and acquisition above all other virtues to tell people in their 70s, who hold that virtue dear, that they must run down their savings to nothing.

Mr. Hamilton: I vibrate to the hon. Lady's theme, but I am sure that she would not be able to be more specific about the level of savings that she would take as the point at which withdrawals would begin and about what the tapers would be. Although she agrees with my general proposition that there should be a point at which benefits should be withdrawn, she has not been candid enough with the House to confess what the figure should be.
The rent and rate tapers that we are debating today are a significant improvement on what they were before. As the hon. Lady will know, the rent taper has been changed


from 33 to 65 per cent., and the rate taper from 13 to 20 per cent. The starting point for calculating benefit under the new scheme is 100 per cent. of rents and 80 per cent. of rates, rather than 60 per cent. as it was before. That is a significant improvement for people on low incomes with small amounts of capital.
Similarly, to answer the hon. Lady's charge that the Government are introducing a disincentive to save, I should say that we are liberalising the capital rules. Previously, any interest that was received over and above the income on a capital sum of £3,000 was subjected to the withdrawals and tapers. We have now introduced a scheme whereby the interest on the first £3,000 is disregarded entirely, and a person does not lose the benefit entirely, until the sum of £8,000 is reached. That is far more reasonable, because the rate of interest that is assumed on a sum of between £3,000 and £3,250 is 1·6 per cent. No one in this country in his right mind is investing his money and receiving only 1·6 per cent. interest on it. Even on the figures that the Government have chosen to take for the withdrawal of benefit, we are being generous to people and taking only a small portion of the income that they receive as the cause of the reduction in their benefit.
All those are compromises. We can all make claims for different figures, capital limits, tapers and withdrawals. An argument could be constructed for any of them, but it is disingenuous of Opposition Members to criticise the figures that we have chosen, without providing figures of their own in return so that we can subject them to the same criticism that they throw at us. That is the weakness of the Opposition. They will not come clean with us in the way that we, as a Government, have come clean with them.
I welcome the housing benefit review and the changes that have been announced. I welcome also the transitional arrangements, because it is wrong for significant alterations in people's expectations to occur in too sharp a way. That is why I thought it was wrong when Sir Keith Joseph, now Lord Joseph, introduced changes in student grant entitlements in 1985. People had not been able to build into their expectations the changes that were announced. Although I am in favour of making the changes on a long-term basis, there should be a period when we can work ourselves into the new system. That is only fair and just, and therefore I welcome the Government's desire to make the changes that we are debating.

Mr. Tony Banks: How long will that period last?

Mr. Hamilton: We can argue about that. It is much better to take the view that we should monitor how the system works, the take-up levels and how great the need is, and then adjust the system in the light of experience, rather than take a theoretical view at the start and make hard and fast decisions that may turn out to be wrong.

Mr. Winnick: I echo all the views put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) about the hardship and misery that has been caused by the change in the housing benefit regulations. Does the hon. Gentleman receive tax relief on his mortgage interest, or has he decided to refund that sum to the Exchequer? Surely on his income, which, as I understand it, is not exclusively parliamentary, he does not require any such financial assistance.

Mr. Hamilton: I have a mortgage and I claim tax relief on the maximum amount allowed of £30,000. Is the implication of the hon. Gentleman's remark that the Labour party is now in favour of the abolition of mortgage interest relief? Again, the hon. Gentleman—whom I would dearly love to see on the Opposition Front Bench; I cannot think why he has not been promoted, nor why I have not been promoted, because we could make a double act of this—makes a disingenuous point. If we were starting from scratch, we would not introduce mortgage interest relief. It is an anomaly in the tax system that has existed for a long time. However, for practical reasons, neither party ——

Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) has taken 17 minutes up to now. He knows that there is not enough time for every hon. Member who wishes to speak. Other hon. Members have been present throughout the debate, but he walked in after it had begun and is making a long speech because no other Conservative Members wish to speak. It is completely unfair.

Mr. Hamilton: It is undesirable that Opposition Front-Bench Members should attack their Back-Bench colleagues for intervening in my speech and so protracting it. I am always delighted to give way, because that is what true debate is all about, rather than simply moving from Front-Bench spokesman to Back Bencher bawling out views that add nothing to the debate. The exchanges that we have had across the Floor have brought a great deal of light to the debate, unlike the hon. Gentleman, who merely adds heat and noise, which gets us nowhere.

Mr. Haynes: That is not true. Now sit down.

Mr. Hamilton: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am always keen to support our democratic parliamentary institutions and to debate, calmly and rationally, matters such as this, which are of great importance to our constituents. I only wish that many more Labour Members took the same view. If they did, I am sure that their party would do much better in the country. I am certainly not attempting to filibuster. I have made most of the points that I wanted to make in an orderly way in a somewhat disorderly way as a result of the interventions of Opposition Members.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the House wishes to assist you in having a genuine debate. Surely it is unreasonable, as well as unfair, for an hon. Member who has not heard all the debate to keep waiting other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), who have heard all the debate and are anxious to speak.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I hope that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) will have regard to the points of order that have been raised.

Mr. Hamilton: I do not wish to be unreasonable Nothing is further from my thoughts, and I shall sit down shortly. I have been in a similar situation on many previous occasions when Opposition Members have spoken at inordinate length without adding as much light to the debate as my speech has done. I feel for them, and I shall observe the points that have been made.
All I would say about the system that we are defending here today is that we are introducing a simplified system


that will add to the understanding or ordinary people, for whom the system is constructed. It is fairer than the old system. It deals partly with the problems of the poverty trap and it targets more accurately the benefits that are available under our social security system. Therefore, I have no hesitation in supporting the Government's amendment to the Opposition's motion. Conservative Members are prepared honestly to face the problems of the social security system, whereas the Opposition are prepared only to make generalised assertions, without telling us what their proposals would be. They are prepared to attack us without giving us the opportunity to attack them.

Mr. John Battle: Government Back Benchers have expressed confusion about particular points that have been made, and that confusion extends to the Government Front Bench. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) on the Government Front Bench. The hon. Gentleman has inherited the post of Under-Secretary of State from the fastest moving Minister, as he has been described in the press today, who has moved on to other things.
As we have been reminded, we have said goodbye to paragraphs in the manual and we have now said goodbye to the Under-Secretary of State. However, he has left behind the remains of the debate on housing benefit that I attended, as I have attended every minute of this debate, late at night on 19 July. The Under-Secretary of State might like to recall his colleague to answer a point that arises from something that he said during that debate or ask his Department for a clear answer, because people need to know.
The then Under-Secretary of State was pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) about the transitional arrangements. He said:
The transitional protection will run from the beginning of April until 31 July for those who apply after 31 July. The date of 31 July is not a cut-off point for the receipt of applications. I hope that I have made that point clear.
Some of us were surprised by that remark, and when I pressed the Minister further he said:
We have given that undertaking several times. I said in my introductory remarks that the 31 July date is not a deadline for applications. It is a deadline for transitional protection, which can be paid only up to that date, but applications will be welcome beyond that time."—[Official Report, 19 July 1988; Vol. 137, c. 1051–61.]
I am advised that if members of the public telephone the DSS to ask about that reply, they are told that it was wrong. I hope that the Minister will assure the House that it was not wrong. I hope that he will clarify that point, because people do not know what the transitional arrangements are. People may not be put off from applying, but will those who apply after 31 July receive transitional protection only from the date of application and not from 1 April? That could make a world of difference, particularly if the transitional payments cannot be processed until months later, because that will mean that such people are applying after the period of transitional protection so they will not be entitled to that relief. If that reference simply disappears from Hansard, it will be a case of Government by Tipp-Ex—rubbing out the

inconvenient bits rather than putting before us policies that can be clearly explained to the people whom we represent.
There are only five days to go before the 31 July deadline. Conservative Members do not seem to be aware of the scale of what they simply refer to as anomalies. Leeds has 60,000 council tenants on benefits and 17,000 private tenants, of whom 10,000 receive income support. Originally, the transitional protection did not extend to those who did not receive income support—in other words, 25,000 of those 60,000. Then the Government extended the scheme to those who receive income support, but not to those who receive over 80 per cent. help with their rates, which is the vast majority of that group, nor those who have lost less than £2·50 a week. In other words, they have not lost enough to be cushioned against the changes.
In effect, only 25,000 in Leeds may receive help. According to anybody's arithmetic, there are clearly many more losers than gainers. As I said last week, elderly people are now arriving at my advice surgeries in tears asking why their benefits have been cut for the first time in their lives. They cannot understand the Government's policies.

Mr. Greg Knight: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Will he explain why, if things are as bad as he makes out, on an Opposition day only five Labour Back Benchers are in the Chamber? Is that not a disgrace?

Mr. Battle: I am growing used to the Government's tactics in this Chamber. When Conservative Members do not have an argument to make, they try to slide in a little abuse to keep the debate going.

Mr. Tom Clarke: My hon. Friend was referring to the elderly, but does he accept that the problems he outlines, which are common to most constituencies, suggest that the Government's policies have struck a blow at community care? Is he not surprised that, although the Griffiths report was published the day after the Budget, there has still been no Government statement, no debate, and no understanding of the Government's view of it?

Mr. Battle: Someone has already commented that it seems as though the Government's social security policy is made up day by day. That may now change because the Department has been divided, but we are still looking for clear policies to help people, rather than accepting the fictitious impression given by the Government, which has been reinforced by Conservative Members restating it, that people are being supported. That still does not explain to my constituents where they stand. Before 1 April, they paid £13·60 rent out of their pensions, but then they found that it had been increased to £22·11. It can be argued that the capital rules have changed and that those pensioners will get their money back. However, those repayments will only be backdated to 30 May, not 1 April, which means that such pensioners will lose two months' money at the rate of £8·51 per week. Where do they stand? Why must they lose as a result of the Government changing their mind over a period of three weeks since the original rent regulations came before Parliament?
Leeds city council is currently running a programme to identify cases eligible for transitional protection. However, that programme will be ready only at the end of this week, which coincidentally matches the very date of the scheme's


closure. It seems to many of us that the Government are making up the rules as they fumble along. They produced form RR4, which claimants must obtain and complete before returning it to the Glasgow unit. That unit then sends those details to each local authority, and they in turn fill in form TP3 and return it to Glasgow. Glasgow then sends the claimant a declaration, which must be signed before any payment can be made.
There are two problems with that process. First, form RR4, having barely been distributed, is already out of date because its first draft did not include those who are on income support, but it does now because the rules have been changed. Secondly—and more disastrous for the people whom we represent—claimants are forced to borrow money at high rates of interest so that they may pay their rent while they wait to learn whether or not they will get their money back. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the scheme certainly hits the erosion factor.
In a question for written answer, I asked the Minister whether any account had been taken in the calculations of housing benefit for next year of the rent increases that will result from the implementation of the Housing Act in September. His answer was crystal clear—that housing benefit would not be there to match the rent increases accruing as a result of the introduction of the Housing Act this autumn.
That will mean that in future, the poor in society—I note that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), who spoke for so long, does not have the courtesy to listen to the speeches following his, which I assumed was a custom of the House—will have to pay more than one third of their income on housing, which places them in an impossible situation. Those on low incomes will be left with absolutely no margin. There is no question of any problem in implementing increases or extra resources, as has been suggested.
The housing benefit proposals were crystal clear in the Green Paper, "The Reform of Social Security." When the whole process of reform began, the Labour party and many of my hon. Friends pressed for the figures. It was clear from one figure that housing benefit would have to be cut back. That was presented very much in the terms used by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine), who suggested that people ought not to receive housing benefit, and that, if they did not have a job, the need to get the money to pay their rent will provide them with the incentive to obtain one. The cut in housing beneflt—and the Government cannot get out of it now—has come home to roost on the Dispatch Box, and the Minister must answer for that cut, no matter how much he may argue that other changes have made life easier for claimants.
As one pensioner put it to me, the people who will pay the price of those changes can do the arithmetic. Their question to the Government is, "Why can't you do the arithmetic? Why are you spending more on telling the public about Sid or on advertising the 1992 Euromarket than you are on supporting and informing people who are on benefits?"

Mrs. Audrey Wise: A diabetic constituent of mine, who is aged 75, and his wife will lose £5 per week. He said to me, "This cannot be right." I had to tell him that it is correct in the Government's terms, but certainly it is not right in moral terms. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Mr. Battle: I agree absolutely. The public at large understand that one cannot take money from the poor and give it to the rich, and then claim that one is on the high moral ground. People openly see and acknowledge the injustice of doing so. I would only add this rider to my hon. Friend's observation. Although we present case after case to the Government, they are shrugged off as anomalies or as individual instances, whereas they hallmark a fault in the structure of the changes. It is the structure that is wrong, and we shall continue to challenge and expose it.

Mr. Tony Banks: A whole group of people will not benefit, and I have many instances of them in my own constituency. I refer, for example, to young single people in low-paid work. I could not elicit an answer from the Minister, but what does my hon. Friend think of a single man of 19, having a gross weekly income of £52·56, losing about £14 per week because of housing benefit changes? What am I to say to such a constituent? Should I tell him, "Don't worry, because someone else will benefit from them."? The Minister would not tell me how I should reply, so perhaps my hon. Friend will give me a clue as to what I should say about this vicious and evil Government.

Mr. Battle: What strikes me about my hon. Friend's remark is that I remember that in one of the first weeks of this Parliament, nearly one year ago, a Conservative Member suggested that perhaps the whole social security system ought to be reformed. He did not seem to realise that that process had been going on for years and that the Government set out to reform the system to achieve precisely what some Conservative Back Benchers suggest —a cut in the social security budget, regardless of who pays the price. We all know that those who will pay the price are at the bottom of society. Sadly, we are left to explain to our constituents that that reform is not bettering people but is taking money from the worst-off for redistribution not only in the social security system but also through the tax system to ensure that the best-off in our society benefit from it. That is the difficulty.
I ask the Minister to give a clear and unequivocal statement about the transitional arrangements. Will he assure the House that paragraphs in Hansard of the last housing benefits debate will not be rubbed out as a mistake at the Dispatch Box by the former Minister, who has now moved on to another Department? Will the Minister stand by what was said then, or will he tell the House what is the latest situation? Unless those matters are clarified, of course people will remain anxious about whether or not they will receive transitional payments. It is not simply that people have had money taken away from them, but that the Government's proposals to do something even about the margins of that problem are seriously in question.
Let me drive home to the Government a point made to me by a pensioner. The people who pay the price can do the arithmetic. I hope that the Minister is getting his Department to do the arithmetic about all the cases that the Opposition have mentioned this afternoon. Conservative Members who refuse to sit and listen to the debate and who write off our examples—as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has said—as if we had invented fictitious characters, should listen to us rather than go into the Lobby tonight to vote against us ostrich-like with their heads in the sand. If they do that, they will be seen to be


deliberately and blindly voting down the poor into the margins of our society, and they should be held to account in every constituency in the country.

Mr. Michael Jack: I have sat and listened to the debate from the start, and I have paid close attention to the argument by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) in his moving address. I acknowledge that he and many of his hon. Friends have considerable knowledge of the subject, and that they have put with passion and care their arguments about the way in which the changes in social security, and particularly in housing benefit, have affected their constituents.
I hope, however, that the hon. Member for Leeds, West does not think that he and his hon. Friends have a monopoly in their handling of these issues, or that Conservative Members are entirely hard-hearted. The present Government have at least had the courage to get hold of the social security system and to recognise the inescapable underlying fact of a decreasing working base and an increasing number of people who are dependent for part of their lives on some form of state benefit.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What about mortgage relief?

Mr. Jack: Part of the Government's policy has been to reduce the standard rate of income tax, and the value of mortgage relief has been falling over a period. Let us put mortgage relief to one side. It may be a way out—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) would like to make a proper intervention, I shall sit down, but sedentary interventions that have not been thought out are not helpful at this stage. The hon. Gentleman has clearly not thought out his intervention, so I shall continue.
I have paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Social Security for his appreciation of some of the problems that followed the changes in social security. I hope that my hon. Friends will not mind my mentioning what happened when a number of us got together with my hon. Friend the Minister and told him how we saw the first stab at the subject of housing benefit. My hon. Friend listened carefully to what was said, moving quickly and arguing his case well in Government to bring forward the transitional arrangements. It is often said that once Government have decided what they want to do there is no way which they can be moved. It is a tribute to my hon. Friend's powers of advocacy that we are here tonight debating the arrangements.
Let us examine some salient points. According to a Library research note, it is estimated that in the financial year 1988–89 some 3·4 million people will still receive a rebate in connection with rent, and that 5·8 million will receive rate rebates. Despite all that has been said, the Government will be spending some £5·4 billion. That is a good deal of public money. Opposition Members do not often take into account when chastising my hon. Friends on the Front Bench the fact that someone has to pay for it all, and many taxpayers are glad that the Government have had the courage to address the problem.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Does the hon. Gentleman accept—or perhaps advocate—that an

86-year-old widow in my constituency, who receives £44 a week in pension, £35 a month in National Coal Board pension and £4·50 a week in concessionary coal allowance in lieu of coal, should now find that the Government no longer allow concessionary coal allowance money to be counted in housing benefit? She must now pay £8 a week extra. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that that old lady should help to pay for the concessions that the Government have supposedly given, or does he think that she should receive transitional help as well?

Mr. Jack: In an earlier debate my hon. Friend the Minister said that he would monitor carefully the way in which the new arrangements were to be phased in, and it is barely six months since he gave us that assurance. I am sure that he will have noted the technical point about the way in which the regulations operate.
When people came to my advice bureau, I observed that much of their confusion was due to the effects not only of increased council rents but of large rate increases. People in Lancashire have suffered from an 18·5 per cent. rate increase. Some of the background details explain why people are complaining about the cost of housing. There is a way out of some of the problems put to us by Opposition Members: to run housing more efficiently and to reduce the costs of local government.
One group has been rather missed out in this debate —the people who bought their own homes and were affected by the £6,000 capital rule. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister decided to change that, because many of those people are now able to gain some benefit. I have been struck by the negative tone of the debate, in which no one has considered whether there are other ways if increasing people's income rather than expecting them to turn to the state for some form of handout. Will my hon. Friend use his Department's considerable powers to see whether there are ways of helping people who have an asset in their homes to unlock it and generate income, so that they can be freed from the dependency culture and given an added impetus?
Will my hon. Friend talk to his hon. Friends in the Treasury? I asked a parliamentary question about the number of people receiving housing benefit who also happened to be taxpayers. Will my hon. Friend ask the Treasury to tip the balance slightly to help such people to stop being taxpayers? The Conservative party has done much to reduce the standard rate of tax and increase allowances, but a little push from my hon. Friend might remove those people's need for housing benefit, thus freeing resources that could then be applied—through my hon. Friend's skills—to deal with some of the cases put to us with such compassion by Opposition Members.
Conservative Members too are compassionate; we are concerned about the factors that lead people to need housing benefit. But we also recognise the need for the social security changes, and we shall support them in the Lobby.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: It is right that now, before the summer recess, we should look at what is happening and will be happening to many of our constituents during and after that period. It is also right that we should remember—as my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said at the outset—that the cut of £650 million from housing benefit payments made in


April is not a mistake, a miscalculation or a misunderstanding, but, as the Secretary of State courteously informed us, a deliberate act of Government policy.
The Minister of State gave us a long list of all the things to which the Government said goodbye in April, but I should like to remind him of an item that he omitted. They said goodbye to 1 million people who were no longer entitled to housing benefit of any kind. The act of taking that money from housing benefit was deliberately and specifically supported by the vast majority of Government Back Benchers, with a few honourable exceptions. I am pleased that so many Conservative Members have defended their Government's policy. They put their names, necks and reputations on the line and said that the Government are right to take this money from people who are suffering.
The Government have alleged that this is a more generous scheme. They say that it costs more now than it did in 1979. There are a number of reasons for that. The number of people who have retired has increased. That is a demographic change. There has been an increase in the number of unemployed people. There have been increases in rents and rates following the cuts in housing support and the rate support grant. For which of those reasons do the Government seek praise in their amendment? They have reiterated that housing benefit is paid too far up the income scale, even though some of the Ministers who have passed before us in dizzy progression at the Dispatch Box knew that the right to housing benefit was lost at far below average earnings, unless rent or rates were exceptionally high.
The next bit of the script, delivered in hushed tones, was that housing benefit went to one in three households. That always worked. It would be unkind to speculate on whether the Government Whips Office holds training sessions for Back Benchers so that it is sure that there will always be cries of "Shame," or other noises off. They were a little more subdued today than they had been in the past.
Finally, it has perhaps begun to dawn on Conservative Members that if one household in three is receiving housing benefit, many of them must be in their constituencies. It is notable that those who cried, "Forward," when they heard that magic statistic in the past soon cried, "Back," when they realised how many of the losers live in their own constituencies.
The Minister of State accused us of scouring the country looking for victims, but they came to us. I am confident that all my hon. Friends and even Conservative Members remember at least one of those who stepped forward—a pensioner who did not understand why the cuts had been made. Nobody had told her. The Prime Minister was utterly shocked and dismayed to discover at her constituency advice bureau that pensioners in her constituency were losing large sums of money.
The Government say that three years of meticulous planning went into the changes and that they were all carried out under the eagle eye of the woman who misses nothing. It looks as though the Prime Minister suffered from a severe case of unpredictable memory loss. Such memory losses are always triggered by serious Government difficulties. It is a form of anxiety neurosis for which the right hon. Lady should seek medical advice. Either the Prime Minister was incompetent because she did

not know what the Government were doing, or her staff failed to warn her that this issue would cause her the most difficulty.
There is another possible explanation. Perhaps the Prime Minister hoped that her constituents would blame the local council in whose name the bad news would be sent forth. It has worked often enough in the past. Up and down the land, councils of all political colours have carried the can for cuts dictated by the Government. As with major crimes, the police nail the small fry but the bigger culprit continues to enjoy unscathed his large house and fat income. That explanation fits the evidence.
For three years, while the Opposition and a few very honourable Conservative Members, as well as housing and social security experts across the country predicted the losses that people would experience, the Government remained utterly indifferent. Even in the week after the cuts were made, the Government did nothing and said that they would continue to do nothing. It was only when they realised that they were getting stuck with the blame for their actions that they panicked and rushed through the emergency package.
Ever since, they have loudly congratulated themselves on their wisdom and generosity. Was it wisdom to give back £100 million that they should never have taken in the first place from the most vulnerable groups in the community? The Minister of State said that he thought that the Government ought to be given credit for giving back a bit of what they had taken away. Were the Government generous to keep the other £550 million? Would the Minister be grateful to a mugger who gave him the bus fare home?
Even with this much vaunted transitional protection, the scheme is still in something of a mess. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) referred to the complicated system that local councils and the transitional payment unit have to follow. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) referred to a recent answer to a parliamentary question about people on income support who had been given transitional protection for some of the losses that they might otherwise have faced. She referred to confusion. My hon. Friend is entirely right: many local authorities are confused. Despite the parliamentary answer, they have not been told officially of these concessions. Confusion also exists at Richmond house. When guidance was sought about the changes, all knowledge of them was denied. We are still experiencing substantial difficulties.
My hon. Friend referred to the very considerable rent arrears that are already building up in local authorities. They will be a problem for local authorities. They will be a problem for local authorities. But what frightens me about the cases that have been identified is that the people who are building up rent arrears are doing so because they believe and understand, based on Government propaganda, that they will receive transitional protection for all losses of over £2·50. I shudder to think what will happen when they realise that their enormous debts may not be paid.
It does not seem to have sunk into the minds of Conservative Members who echoed the Minister of State's self-congratulation that even if we take the Government's defence of their package face value it is still, at best, transitional protection. It escaped the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) who chided my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) for giving


various case histories. Even if they are eligible for transitional protection—and it is doubtful whether all of them will be eligible—their losses will be phased in and they will lose that money. It is just a question of how fast they lose it.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Will the hon. Lady let us into a secret? Ought there to be a needs assessment for housing benefit purposes? If so, what are the capital limits and the tapers that she would apply to the withdrawal of benefit? Furthermore, what is the estimated cost to public funds of her proposal?

Mrs. Beckett: As usual, the hon. Gentleman dwells on the capital limit. The capital limit will result in very few losses. In this day and age, a capital limit of £10,000 might be just. Most of the losers lose because of the taper, and the loss is extremely severe.
Whatever happens, the transitional protection that we are debating will be whittled away as time goes on, as rents and rates rise and as only last year's income is available to meet next year's prices. It is suggested that that process will not be fast enough for the Government. They might decide that next year the so-called acceptable loss should be £3·50 and that the year after that it should be £4·50. That loss, which is acceptable to the Government, will be on top of next year's rent and rates rises. An income of less than this year's income will have to meet next year's price increases.
Next year's rent increases, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West said, will be substantial, if the Secretary of State for the Environment has his way. They will almost certainly be enough to wipe out the transitional protection that is provided for most of those who receive it. It will leave them, as the Government intended from the first, much worse off than they were in March 1988.
It may not take as long for the scheme to disappear as many Government Back Benchers fondly hope—that is, not before the villains have left the scene and the public have forgotten the names of the guilty parties. It may be next year or the year after, because the point of transitional protection is not to prevent hardship but to break people more slowly into hardship—and I use the word "break" advisedly.
Soon, other voices will be heard—the voices of the newly unemployed, the newly disabled, the newly separated and the newly retired, who are expected to manage on incomes below, in some cases far below, those that they would have received if only they had had the forethought to be 65, or jobless, or sick last year rather than this. The Government have not yet abolished the welfare state, but they are steadily eroding its foundations.
At my weekend advice bureau, I met an extremely intelligent, competent and sensible woman who has worked all her life and is proud of it and who is extremely independent. She has been unlucky. Her marriage failed after many years and she has become afflicted with arthritis. She has only a small occupational pension in addition to the state pension. She receives no other help or support. She is precisely one of those to whom so many Conservative Members have referred in the debate, who are not in sufficient need to deserve help under this Government. She is a sensible person and has no extravagances, but she tells me that she cannot live on her income. She has been fortunate enough to get some

part-time work but it is not easy for her to do it because of her arthritis. She asks me what she is to do and how she will manage when she is no longer fit to work, and I do not know what to tell her.
What would the Minister tell her? There is no doubt that her income will drop substantially if she has to cease work. Would the Minister tell her that the country cannot afford any more because we must give priority to those who are already among the wealthiest? Should I tell her that the Government believe that it is wrong to withdraw income from the wealthy at more than 40p in every extra pound, but that it is right to take 80p to 95p from the poor?
The Government have justified the cuts and praised themselves for phasing them in by saying over and over again that we must not help people who do not need help and that we must liberate them from dependency. The Government define the people who really need help as those who are already wealthy. They define those who do not need help as those who are on low incomes. They use the stick for the poor and the carrot for the wealthy.
It is not even true that the Government set their face against dependency. Through the regulations and guidelines, they are telling people to depend on friends and relatives and to scrounge from them. The Government demand that people ask for charity—anything, as long as they do not ask for their rights in a fair society. That would be too independent by half.
The history of the transitional protection scheme is shabby and sordid. The scheme is inadequate, short-term, short-sighted and a sop to public concern. One could call it the figleaf to cover the Government's shame, except that this Government have no shame and show no justice.

Mr. Scott: I take the opportunity—the last, I imagine —with the leave of the House, not to reassert the reasons why we introduced the housing benefit scheme in its present form or why we were convinced by rational argument of the need for transitional protection, but to allay some of the anxieties that have been raised during the debate and to answer a number of points that have been made.
I shall first take the opportunity utterly to refute the point made by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), that the Government have in any sense embarked on undermining the welfare state or the social security system. Our budget for social security is now about £50 billion a year. It is the largest single programme of the Government, and it is larger now than it has ever been. I cannot accept the hon. Lady's strictures. If we are to be criticised simply because we want to ensure that the money is spent as effectively as possible, she has chosen the wrong target.
It is important to answer some of the points that have been raised, not least because there are people outside the House who may have been made anxious by some of the comments made by Opposition Members.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose——

Mr. Scott: I shall deal first with the numbers and statistics involved in the introduction of the transitional protection system, because I was criticised for not dealing with them in my opening speech. Opposition Members have had a great deal of fun with the 68 payments made so far.

Mr. Robin Cook: It is right.

Mr. Scott: Of course it is right: the hon. Gentleman announced the figure and I did not challenge the assertion that that is the number of payments that have been made.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose——

Mr. Scott: Much more significant for the people who are awaiting help from the transitional protection system that we have introduced are the following figures: first, some 4 million application forms have been issued by the Government and the unit; 119,000 and over have been received back; nearly 50,000 have been sent out to local authorities, asking them for information so that the applications can be processed; nearly 8,000 of those have come back; and more than 1,700 people have been told that they will receive payment.
Those figures show that, whatever fun can be had with the 68 payments, the system of transitional protection is now on stream to provide the help that we intend to provide for those who need it. I understand why there was an element of impatience, but it was right to introduce the system with trained staff and properly thought out arrangements.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose——

Mr. Scott: I cannot resist the impatience of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Tony Banks: I assure the Minister that I can resist him with no great difficulty. Why can he not give local authorities more resources—at the moment they receive only about £5 per form—so that they make their checks that much more quickly? Demands are being placed on local authorities that many of them are not in a position to meet.

Mr. Scott: There were negotiations between the Department and the local authorities, and satisfactory arrangements were made to compensate local authorities for their work. I am sure that the vast majority of them will show as much commitment and enthusiasm in helping us to operate the transitional protection as they did in bringing the housing benefits scheme itself into operation.
We estimate that the scheme that we have introduced will help more than 300,000 people, at a cost of £65 million. Opposition Members had fun with projections about the length of time that it would take to process applications. The information that I obtained on my trip to Glasgow yesterday was that some applications are being dealt with in two to three weeks. The maximum time that the processing takes is about eight weeks, and as the staff become more and more familiar with the operation of the scheme, so we hope that the average time will be consistently reduced.
We are anxious to provide the help as quickly as possible to those whose claims are successful. I was immensely impressed yesterday to hear staff answering the freephone and analysing claimants' circumstances so as to give quick and clear advice as to whether they qualified and, if so, how they could apply for help.
Opposition Members were worried about the date of 31 July. I should make it clear that 31 July is the date applying only to those affected by the change in the capital rule from £6,000 to £8,000. Bearing in mind the publicity associated with the introduction of the scheme, I should have thought that three months would have been ample for someone

discovering that he had capital of between £6,000 and £8,000 to apply for transitional protection. Even if people fail to do that, however, an adjusted form of transitional protection will be available to them. In any case, the 31 July date does not apply to help under transitional protection in general, and no one should worry about his ability to obtain help if he applies beyond that date for ordinary transitional protection.
The hon. Member for Livingston urged me to make an announcement about the way in which the transitional protection would be eroded, as he put it. The important announcement about transitional protection has already been made. I made it at the Dispatch Box, and other Ministers have reiterated it. Transitional payments will continue as necessary into future years. The exact arrangements will depend on the extent of the loss and the pace at which people's benefits and other income changes in the years ahead. Increasing prosperity in our strong economy may well affect that.
We will come forward with detailed arrangements before the end of the year, but it is important for us to be able to establish, before announcing those details, a clear idea of the extent of successful claims for transitional protection and the average payments that are being made.
I welcome back the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) and whichever party he is representing this month. I can understand him missing some of our advertising in The Sun or the News of the World, but I cannot understand him missing the advertisements which appeared in the Scottish news-papers. We spent some £265,000 on that advertising campaign, and we are about to spend rather more on the second stage of our advertising. I believe that, when we have completed that, there will be no excuse at all for anyone not being aware of the availability of the scheme, which will bring real help to those who need it. I commend the amendment to the House, and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support it in the Lobby.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:

The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 279.

Division No. 445]
[7.00 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Buchan, Norman


Allen, Graham
Buckley, George J.


Anderson, Donald
Caborn, Richard


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Armstrong, Hilary
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Ashdown, Paddy
Canavan, Dennis


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Ashton, Joe
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Clay, Bob


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Clelland, David


Barron, Kevin
Cohen, Harry


Battle, John
Coleman, Donald


Beckett, Margaret
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Beggs, Roy
Corbyn, Jeremy


Beith, A. J.
Cousins, Jim


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Crowther, Stan


Bermingham, Gerald
Cryer, Bob


Bidwell, Sydney
Cummings, John


Blair, Tony
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Boateng, Paul
Cunningham, Dr John


Boyes, Roland
Darling, Alistair


Bradley, Keith
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodgo H'l)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Dewar, Donald


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Dixon, Don


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dobson, Frank






Doran, Frank
McWilliam, John


Douglas, Dick
Madden, Max


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Marek, Dr John


Eadie, Alexander
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Eastham, Ken
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Martlew, Eric


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Meacher, Michael


Fatchett, Derek
Meale, Alan


Faulds, Andrew
Michael, Alun


Fearn, Ronald
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Fisher, Mark
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Flannery, Martin
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Flynn, Paul
Morley, Elliott


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Foster, Derek
Mowlam, Marjorie


Foulkes, George
Mullin, Chris


Fraser, John
Murphy, Paul


Galbraith, Sam
Nellist, Dave


Galloway, George
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
O'Brien, William


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


George, Bruce
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Parry, Robert


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Patchett, Terry


Golding, Mrs Llin
Pendry, Tom


Gould, Bryan
Pike, Peter L.


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Prescott, John


Grocott, Bruce
Quin, Ms Joyce


Harman, Ms Harriet
Radice, Giles


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Richardson, Jo


Heffer, Eric S.
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Henderson, Doug
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hinchliffe, David
Rogers, Allan


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Rooker, Jeff


Holland, Stuart
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Home Robertson, John
Rowlands, Ted


Hood, Jimmy
Ruddock, Joan


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hoyle, Doug
Sheerman, Barry


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Smith, C. (lsl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Illsley, Eric
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Ingram, Adam
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


John, Brynmor
Snape, Peter


Johnston, Sir Russell
Soley, Clive


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Steinberg, Gerry


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Strang, Gavin


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Straw, Jack


Kennedy, Charles
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Kilfedder, James
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Kirkwood, Archy
Vaz, Keith


Lambie, David
Wall, Pat


Lamond, James
Wallace, James


Leadbitter, Ted
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Leighton, Ron
Wareing, Robert N.


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Lewis, Terry
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Litherland, Robert
Wigley, Dafydd


Livsey, Richard
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Wilson, Brian


Loyden, Eddie
Winnick, David


McAllion, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


McAvoy, Thomas
Worthington, Tony


Macdonald, Calum A.
Wray, Jimmy


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


McKelvey, William



McLeish, Henry
Tellers for the Ayes:


McNamara, Kevin
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Nigel Griffiths.


McTaggart, Bob






NOES


Adley, Robert
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Aitken, Jonathan
Glyn, Dr Alan


Alexander, Richard
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Goodlad, Alastair


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Amess, David
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gorst, John


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Gow, Ian


Ashby, David
Gower, Sir Raymond


Atkins, Robert
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Ground, Patrick


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Grylls, Michael


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Body, Sir Richard
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bottomley, Peter
Hanley, Jeremy


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hannam, John


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Bowis, John
Harris, David


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Haselhurst, Alan


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hawkins, Christopher


Brazier, Julian
Hayes, Jerry


Bright, Graham
Hayward, Robert


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Heddle, John


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Burt, Alistair
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Butler, Chris
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Butterfill, John
Hill, James


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hind, Kenneth


Carrington, Matthew
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Holt, Richard


Chapman, Sydney
Hordern, Sir Peter


Chope, Christopher
Howard, Michael


Churchill, Mr
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cormack, Patrick
Irvine, Michael


Couchman, James
Irving, Charles


Cran, James
Jack, Michael


Critchley, Julian
Jackson, Robert


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Janman, Tim


Curry, David
Jessel, Toby


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Day, Stephen
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Devlin, Tim
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dickens, Geoffrey
Key, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dover, Den
Knapman, Roger


Durant, Tony
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Emery, Sir Peter
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Fallon, Michael
Knowles, Michael


Farr, Sir John
Knox, David


Favell, Tony
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lang, Ian


Fishburn, Dudley
Latham, Michael


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lawrence, Ivan


Forman, Nigel
Lee, John (Pendle)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Forth, Eric
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lilley, Peter


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Franks, Cecil
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Freeman, Roger
Lord, Michael


French, Douglas
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Fry, Peter
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Gardiner, George
McCrindle, Robert


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Gill, Christopher
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)






Maclean, David
Portillo, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Powell, William (Corby)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Price, Sir David


Major, Rt Hon John
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Malins, Humfrey
Rathbone, Tim


Mans, Keith
Redwood, John


Maples, John
Riddick, Graham


Marland, Paul
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Marlow, Tony
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Rost, Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Ryder, Richard


Miller, Sir Hal
Sackville, Hon Tom


Mills, Iain
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Miscampbell, Norman
Sayeed, Jonathan


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Scott, Nicholas


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Moate, Roger
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Monro, Sir Hector
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Shersby, Michael


Moss, Malcolm
Sims, Roger


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Mudd, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Neale, Gerrard
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Neubert, Michael
Speller, Tony


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Stern, Michael


Oppenheim, Phillip
Stevens, Lewis


Page, Richard
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Paice, James
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Patnick, Irvine
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Pawsey, James
Sumberg, David


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Summerson, Hugo


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)





Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Ward, John


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Watts, John


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Wells, Bowen


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Whitney, Ray


Thorne, Neil
Widdecombe, Ann


Thornton, Malcolm
Wiggin, Jerry


Thurnham, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wilshire, David


Tracey, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Tredinnick, David
Winterton, Nicholas


Trippier, David
Wolfson, Mark


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wood, Timothy


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Woodcock, Mike


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Walden, George



Waller, Gary
Tellers for the Noes:


Walters, Sir Dennis



Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added,put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House applauds the Government's recent reforms of social security; notes that these will result in more taxpayers' money being spent this year than if the old system had continued, and spent in a way better targeted towards those in most need; recognises that the coverage of housing benefit had become too broad; notes that after the reforms housing benefit will still be received by more households than in 1979 and at greater real cost to the taxpayer; welcomes the Government's announcement of 27th April that some transitional protection for losses in housing benefit is to be made available to people in vulnerable groups; commends the Government for the speed with which the unit to administer these payments has been set up; and congratulates it on meeting its stated target of making the first payments in July.

Transport Policies

Mr. Robert Hughes: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the Government's irresponsible transport polices which are careless of the social and economic needs of individuals and communities, have failed the travelling public, put lives at risk and caused great harship and inconvenience; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to introduce transport polices which give proper priority to people's needs for safety and service.
Hon. Members who are regular attenders of transport debates have a feeling of deja vu. It seems that almost every transport debate is preceded by a ministerial reshuffle. Therefore, my first duty is to congratulate the Secretary of State on having survived this time. My second duty is to pass on my congratultions to the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) on his promotion to Minister of State, Department of Transport.
There will be general and genuine regret at the departure of the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell). Yesterday was a good news-bad news day for him. The good news was that he was offered a knighthood, and the bad news was that he had to go to the Government Back Benches to get it. Quite frankly, he deserves more than that. He vigorously defended successive policies with successive Secretaries of State. I am glad to see him in his place. All hon. Members look forward to his further contributions to our transport debates—all the more so now that he is free of the shackles of ministerial responsibility.
One wonders at the unreality of the Government's amendment. They seem to live in a totally different world from that of ordinary mortals. A cursory glance at press headlines over the past few weeks will enable one to see the story of traffic chaos on the roads, and of the Government being under attack for their failure to preserve their road maintenance programme and being behind with their by-pass programme. There is astonishing chaos at airports, and stories of sit-downs in the middle of Luton airport runway because of great dissatisfaction with what has been happening. Yet the Government seem to pretend that everything is all right.
Our motion sets out the truth. The Government are obsessed with deregulation, privatisation and cost cutting. Quite frankly, that attitude pushes safety and the well-being of the public to the back of the minds of those who run the transport system. One of the most chilling statements to come from the King's Cross disaster inquiry was made by one witness, who said:
We thought of fire in relation to damage to property and not as a hazard to passengers.
That is a most chilling report, and it was made because of the Government's obsession with deregulation, privatisation and cost cutting. It puts a dead hand on the initiative of those who seek to serve public industries. There is no doubt that the people in British Rail who want to plan for a better future find themselves stifled by constant references to bringing in private capital.
I fully understand why the Government are embarrassed at their philosophical inadequacies and the way in which they have been exposed by recent events. I appreciate that they sought to divert people from the real problems that face them by having a question planted and by giving a response to the North committee report. It was an attempt to divert the attention of the general public

from what is happening. Having had a copy of the Minister's reply placed on the board at 6.30 this evening, I cannot be expected to comment on it in full or in any great depth. At a quick glance, I see that there is a lot of sense in it. I particularly welcome traffic light monitoring to stop people steaming through intersections long after the lights have changed to red. It is an extremely dangerous practice.
High technology is mentioned in the North report and in the Minister's response, but there is no mention of who is to pay for it. If it is to be the local authorities, it will be no use asking hard-pressed rate-capped authorities in London—where much of the problem of traffic congestion arises—to find the money to pay for that sort of technology. The Minister must be a lot more positive about where the finance will come from.
The Minister ducked the controversial issue of random breath testing. Frankly, I support it, and I believe that it is an additional arm of enforcement that the police need —unlike the Under-Secretary, who appears to believe that it is a substitute for current enforcement procedures. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will explain the difference between random breath testing and discretionary testing. Discretionary testing would appear to be as unconnected as random testing with the commission of an offence. I hope that he is not trying to smuggle in the sus law in another form—"You look a likely candidate for testing" —because that may cause a problem.
We are concerned about the Government's shortcomings, especially in relation to air traffic control and holiday traffic. We have heard all the old, tired and familiar excuses. It is always someone else's fault. It is the greedy holiday company, the strikes of foreign traffic controllers or the Civil Aviation Authority—anybody or everybody is to blame except the Government. However, the Government have accepted responsibility. A few weeks ago they began to see the writing on the wall, so they asked the Civil Aviation Authority to provide, by September, some plans to prevent the chaos next year. They cannot have it both ways; either they have responsibility or they do not.
We have been worried about air traffic control and safety for a very long time. There are no Ministers left at the Department of Transport who were in office when the Airports Act, which privatised British airports, was considered, but officials will remember that when that measure was going through its various stages we moved amendments to regulate the hours and the conditions of service of air traffic controllers. We were concerned about fatigue, and the amount of work carried out, but the Government steadfastly refused to have anything to do with it. We argued that if pilots had regulated hours of work, so should air traffic controllers. The Government, however, assured us that everything was all right.
Flow control has now been introduced because of a spate of near-misses. It was public outcry and concern about what was happening that brought about flow control. The Civil Aviation Authority and the Government between them bungled the whole issue, because none of this was unexpected. The amount of traffic was expected. As late as 14 July, the Under-Secretary told me that in March the Government had been assured by the Civil Aviation Authority that there would be some restriction on the number of planes flying. I am not quite sure what the sentence means, but it says that the National Air Traffic Services


anticipated an increase compared to the average delay of 10 to 15 minutes experienced in 1987."—[Official Report, 18 July 1988; Vol. 137, c. 339.] 
I am not sure whether the Minister was saying that the average was 10 to 15 minutes in 1987 or whether he was expecting an increase of 10 to 15 minutes this year. If it was the latter, it was clearly a misprint, because it should be 10 to 15 hours, which is what has been happening.
The problem has not been caused by an increase in traffic. The amount of charter traffic has gone up only by 2 to 3 per cent. That figure is confirmed in a brief which I am sure many hon. Members will have received from Britannia Airways. Britannia Airways claims that its experience is that by using bigger aircraft, it is running 25 to 30 fewer flights weekly than it was in 1987. There has not been a failure in terms of air traffic control and there has certainly not been insufficient runway capacity. There is plenty of that. It is not inefficient management of the current air space; it is simply that, with the equipment available, the best efficiency will not allow any more traffic to fly.
There are two sorts of solutions to the problem of the long-suffering public whose holidays are being ruined by long waits at terminals and the whole experience of flying. In the short term, we must look for solutions other than those so far proposed by the Secretary of State.
I reject night flights. They are an imposition; they transfer the agony from inside the airport terminals to those people living under the flight path. I venture to suggest that the short-term relaxation on night flights will result in permanent night flights next year. The best solution is to transfer some of the existing air space——

Mr. Toby Jessel: It sounds as if the hon. Gentleman does not know that, since the relaxation on night flights, only two extra flights have gone through Heathrow instead of through Gatwick, neither of which was at night. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State listened to the representations made on behalf of the people living around Heathrow.

Mr. Hughes: I have heard extravagant claims in my life, but that takes the biscuit. The hon. Gentleman knows that night flights have not so far expanded because airlines claim that, if they fly at night, they cannot get in at the other end. It has nothing to do with his representations; it is a fact of life. I suggest that once airlines get used to the idea of flying at night, changes will be made.
We should transfer some of the space permanently reserved for military aircraft to civilian use. I believe that will provide the space needed greatly to ease the problem. That is not a novel suggestion. In West Germany, they have opened up five new air corridors because of demand. I do not see any reason why that cannot be done as a temporary measure here.
In the longer term, the tragedy is that the CAA is way behind with its investment programme. It became infected by the Government's drive for cost-cutting and it now admits that it should have asked for more money some time ago. At least it has now been converted and is willing to ask for more money. Much more money is needed, and quickly, to speed up the present computer strategy.

Mr. Keith Mans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No, I think not, because time is moving on very fast.
The CAA must start to bring forward its plans for expansion of the system, which it does not envisage coming into operation until the year 2000. Much must be done also to train new air traffic controllers by the use of radar simulators. I am horrified to discover that those simulators were called for as long ago as 1964, but there is still none in place.
The Government must move away from the impression that it is said they have given to the charter and airline companies: "Just take the customers' money. It does not matter what you do once you have it. Take it and expand the business, and who cares what happens after that."
I want to refer briefly—perhaps too briefly because of the importance that it warrants—to P and O's safety record. During the whole period of the P and O dispute we vigorously expressed our anxiety about the potential damage to safety because of the company's proposals. Regrettably, since P and O has been sailing its vessels again, our concern has been justified. There have been far too numerous reports about safety codes being breached and, although the Minister has said that those breaches will be examined, many people believe that they will not be examined properly.
Is the Minister aware that on 17 July there was a report in The Observer about a fire on the P and O vessel European Clearway? Is he further aware that Mr. John Douglas Ball has sought the permission of the Attorney-General to take out a private prosecution because he is so dissatisfied with the Department of Transport's lack of action? As further information is coming forward every day, would the Minister be prepared to meet seafarers with direct recent experience of P and O to ensure that all complaints are thoroughly investigated? That has to be done to allay the fears.
The prime example of the dead hand of Marsham street stifling initiative is the report by British Rail on the Channel tunnel rail services south of London.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Has my hon. Friend read the full report about John Ball and the European Clearway, which stated that the breaches of safety were so numerous that John Ball referred to them as a horrifying catalogue of breaches of safety by P and O? When there was an oil leak on the ship five weeks ago, which he reported, the people in charge said, "Stick a bucket underneath and catch the oil." A similar incident resulted in a fire. When he reported the problem, he was so disgusted that no action was taken—although a serious fire had occurred, it was dowsed—that he rejoined the strike. Is it not time that the Government wrenched themselves clear from Jeffrey Sterling and P and O, even though he handed over £100,000 for the general election campaign, and sorted out some British justice for once?

Mr. Hughes: I hear clearly what my hon. Friend says. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is rubbish."] Well, I did hear it. If my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will no doubt mention P and O in more detail.
I found the British Rail report on the possibility of dedicated lines south of London to the tunnel apathetic and timid in the extreme. The report illustrates the true extent of British Rail's demoralisation. There is no sense of urgency or initiative, and no projection that increased business can be obtained by aggressive marketing. It is all passive and reactive. It mentions the Martin Vorhiees


Associates report and the SETEC report—SETC being a French group of consultants for Eurotunnel. The report says that, in certain circumstances, this will happen and that, in others, something else will happen. There is no decision about which set of forecasts it believes to be true. It ignores Eurotunnel's forecasts.
The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) is showing me his pamphlet, but he will do his own puff on it when the time comes. BR's report ignores the Eurotunnel statistics on the grounds that they are not sufficiently detailed for reliable use. It forecasts that there might be additional growth in traffic as a result of the tunnel. The other reports say that there may be some change in business, depending on economic growth.
Having looked at all the figures, British Rail decides that it will provide for only 80 per cent. of capacity. That means that there will be 55 days when the first choice train will not be available and 28 days when there will be unsatisfied demand. That period just happens to be when we would be trying to get traffic. British Rail is already planning for overcrowding. That makes no sense, and it ought to do something about it.
If British Rail cannot bring itself to consider the matter with some inspiration, what hope is there for the future? Under the heading "Financial Evaluations," at paragraph 13.3 of its report British Rail says:
The results of the financial evaluations indicate that:—

(a) There is no financial case for providing extra route or terminal capacity in association with the MVA forecasts until well into the twenty-first century."
If BR does not have the initiative, gumption and go to see what is happening south of London, what hope is there for those of us who saw the Channel tunnel as an engine for regeneration of economies in the north of England and Scotland? None at all. On the same day as the report is published, we are blandly told in a press release that there will be another 18 months of consultation with local authorities to see what might be done for services to the north.
It is time that BR stopped being so negative and acquiescent to Government policies without so much as a whimper of protest. Of course, the Secretary of State will say that the picture is not all bad. I can see forming in his mind the words "Heathrow rail link", because he thinks that that is a good one to bring out. The Secretary of State may be preening himself on approving BR's participation in a joint venture with the British Airports Authority for a fast, direct link and glorying in the attraction of private capital.
The press release gives the impression that it is all the result of an independent study by consultants and that the right hon. Gentleman is accepting proposals, but that impression is not the whole truth. The report—the "Heathrow Access Study"—by Howard Humphreys and Partners in association with others, gives the game away, on page 64, when it says:
The most favourable option of those considered during the final stage of this Study ultimately depends on the Government's objectives. If the sole objective were financial viability, it is fair that any of the schemes considered could be chosen, at a suitable fare level. If the object were to improve travelling times and conditions for all users of public rail transport to the airport, the LUL solution is the only one that meets that condition … But the analysis we have performed … demonstrates clearly that, if what is required is a scheme which:


—is financially viable;
—is attractive to providers of private capital;
—increases consumer choice;
—benefits the maximum number of people and attracts passengers off the roads"
But there is a contradiction. The report states clearly that the best solution to the general travelling public is that of London Underground Ltd. The report continues:
then the option which seems substantially the best"—
not the best—
is the proposal which BR/BAA have developed. On the basis of our own understanding of the Government's objectives we would therefore recommend that this proposal is the one that should be taken forward.
It is not the best. The recommendation is made on the basis of what the consultants think the Government want. That is the problem—the Government are not interested in service or objective criteria. They are interested in sheer dogma. The only solution is that which attracts private capital. Nothing else matters. As long as that is what determines the service that is provided, the public will suffer delays and hardship and, ultimately, I believe that their safety will be imperilled as well.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'congratulates the Government on its success in developing and implementing policies to provide the public and industry with an efficient transport system, giving both value for money and an improved quality of service; welcomes the increased investment in transport infrastructure which is accompanying a reduction in the burden on the taxpayer; applauds the increasing involvement of the private sector in transport projects; and reaffirms the Government's overriding commitment to the safety of travellers.'.
Although there was not much with which I agreed in the speech made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), there were two things. The first is that I also would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir. D. Mitchell) for his magnificent services to the Department of Transport and to the Government. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North for his comments at the beginning of his speech. The only thing about which I should like to correct the hon. Gentleman is that my hon. Friend left for private reasons. We would have loved to keep him for a great deal longer. He will be sorely missed.
The second respect in which I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen. North is that I also would like to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) as Minister of State. Since I have been in the House, all hon. Members from Southgate have been close personal friends. I think that my hon. Friend will make a magnificent contribution to the Department.

Mr. Skinner: Watch him-he will stab the right hon. Gentleman in the back.

Mr. Channon: This concern for me is very kind.
In our previous debate, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North said that I would last 173 days. I have lasted a little more than that, but we shall see how we get on.
The motion asks us to condemn what it calls


the Government's irresponsible transport policies".
I do not think that it is irresponsible to start, as the Government do, with a clear understanding of what constitutes a good transport system—one which is affordable, reliable, efficient and convenient. It must be designed, built and operated with proper respect for the environment, and, above all, it must be safe.
Nor is it irresponsible to draw a clear distinction between those features of a good transport system which are the proper concern of the Government and those which are not. I think that it is the job of Government to set standards of matters of safety and the environment. It is our job to ensure that the nation has a proper transport infrastructure, but that does not mean that every new project has to be funded by the taxpayer and approved in Whitehall. It is our job to ensure that there is free and fair competition between transport operators. After that, it is up to operators to provide the service that the public want, at a price that the public are prepared to pay.
I understand that Opposition Members may not like such an approach to transport policy. They hanker after the old days of interventionism, central planning, state finance, monopolies, and regulation of this and that—in fact, all the old stuff that we had in the past.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose——

Mr. Nigel Spearing: rose——

Mr. Channon: Here they are: regulators every one, subsidisers the lot. I cannot give way to both hon. Gentlemen, so I shall give way to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).

Mr. Banks: Will the Secretary of State accept that where transport operators are competing for finite

Mr. Channon: I shall deal with roads in a moment. Before I finish, I want to deal also with rail investment and with investment in the Underground which, when the hon. Gentleman was one of the leaders of the Greater London council, he was so scandalously incapable of providing —[Laughter.]

Mr. Banks: Come outside and I will take you all on.

Mr. Channon: You may have to regulate the hon. Gentleman, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Robert Adley: My right hon. Friend has laid down as the criteria for public transport, what the public want and what they are prepared to pay. Does he agree that there is another factor in the equation— provided that that transport does not have detrimental effects on other members of the public?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend will recall that I said earlier that environment was a crucial factor. I agree with my hon. Friend and I suspect that I know what he is getting at. I strongly recommend the House to read my hon. Friend's booklet, which should be required reading for every hon. Member. We may have an exam later.
I turn first to the Opposition motion. At least the part relating to maintaining safety standards will be common ground between us. The House must face up to the fact that the most serious safety problem that we have to tackle is road transport. Let us consider the facts. Over 5,000 people were killed on Britain's roads last year. Compared with air travel, motorists run 16 times the risk of being killed; cyclists run 170 times the risk; and motor cyclists

about 440 times the risk. It is true that Britain's roads are among the safest in Europe, but I do not derive all that much comfort from that. There are far too many avoidable accidents on our roads and their economic cost and cost in terms of human suffering is unacceptable.
Therefore, we have set ourselves the firm target of reducing the number of deaths and injuries on Britain's roads from 300,000 per year to 200,000 per year by the end of the century. We are taking action on several fronts to achieve that. We are putting emphasis on bypasses and orbital routes to divert traffic around towns which are where 70 per cent. of all road accidents take place. We are working with local authorities to improve road layouts in towns and are diverting more effort into research into the causes of accidents and how to prevent them.

Mr. Richard Holt: rose——

Mr. Channon: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but this is the last time, because I must get on.

Mr. Holt: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that one of the most dangerous roads in this country is the A1 north from Doncaster? There is no major motorway to the north-east of England. If my right hon. Friend is seriously interested in cutting deaths, he should give us the motorway for which every political party and every local authority in the north of England is asking.

Mr. Channon: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, which he has often expressed to me. Naturally, we shall consider any representations that he makes and we certainly wish to improve the roads in his part of England. I take note of his representations on that important matter.
We have been accused today of being irresponsible about safety. At this very moment, our current motorway safety campaign is in operation. The police are dealing severely with motorway accidents caused by bad driving and are deeply concerned about their prevention. Our main task must be to ensure that we have the right laws and that they are being obeyed. Today we published our interim response to the 137 recommendations of the North report on road traffic law. We accept the conclusion that the offence of reckless driving should be redefined. We agree that drinking drivers who cause fatal accidents must be punished appropriately. We agree that the penalty points system needs rethinking and we agree in principle to the use of video cameras to detect speeding and traffic light offences. We are pursuing the question of insurance policies against disqualification. We shall now consult the police and other interested parties, and I shall publish our final conclusions as soon as I can.
I turn now to a point which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) specifically raised—the question of ferry safety. Mr. Justice Sheen's report made a number of recommendations which we are putting into effect——

Mr. John Prescott: As regulations?

Mr. Channon: Yes, as regulations. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to support us—[Interruption.] Thank you very much. I am most grateful, and I am glad to hear it.
Regulations are already in place, dealing with some of the key issues raised in the Sheen report—including the


procedures to be followed to ensure that ferries do not sail with loading doors open. Other regulations have been drafted and will be brought forward. I am determined that the regulations should be right and I am sure that the House will agree that ill-thought-out regulations will benefit no one——

Mr. Skinner: The Secretary of State is in Sterling's pocket.

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman always says that. I shall ask him who the treasurer of the Labour party is. I suppose that the hon. Gentleman is in the pocket of the treasurer of the Labour party—[Interruption.]—and not only in the pocket, but in the flat of the treasurer of the Labour party——

Mr. Skinner: In case the Secretary of State wants reasonable, proper and precise information, I can inform him that I am one of the people who has nominated somebody to oppose the treasurer of the Labour party —namely, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang).

Mr. Channon: I never thought that gratitude was the hon. Gentleman's most conspicuous quality.
Opposition Members have repeated various allegations that the ferries are being operated unsafely. That is simply not so.

Mr. Terry Fields: It is true.

Mr. Channon: It is not. Marine surveyors have inspected each P and O ferry before its return to service and have made random spot checks thereafter. They have always found the vessels to be carrying a full complement of properly qualified seafarers. Opposition Members are themselves guilty of irresponsibility in this. During our last debate, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) made numerous allegations about safety matters. None of them has been followed up.
Our approach is the responsible one. Where necessary, we will certainly prosecute if offences are committed. I am already prosecuting in the case of the Horsa. I am not prepared to join the Opposition in a mud-slinging session in furtherance of an industrial dispute with people who pretend to be impartial, but are fresh from their triumphs, campaigning on the picket lines as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) was this morning. If offences are committed, we shall certainly prosecute. If there are not—[Interruption.] Yes, I am prosecuting the Horsa at present.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: What about the Herald of Free Enterprise?

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman entirely misunderstands the situation, and I believe that he does so wilfully. It is for the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide.

Mr. Lloyd: Ah.

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman can go on saying, "Ah", until he is blue—or should I say red?—in the face.
I repeat what I have told the House on many occasions. We shall not hesitate to tackle any offences that are brought to our attention, and reasonable Opposition Members know that to be the case.
I turn now to air safety, which is a major issue, which I want to put in its proper perspective [Interruption.] Surely the House is interested in air safety. I want to quote some statistics—[Interruption.] Well, not as quick as the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend.
Over the 10 years from 1978 to 1987, there was one death for every 3·6 billion passenger kilometres flown on British aircraft. That record compares favourably with any other form of transport. I want to quote the statistics, although they are bound to be taken by some as evidence of complacency, which they are not. Complacency would be a sign of real irresponsibility, but it is just as irresponsible to sow unnecessary alarm among the travelling public. Therefore, I want to give the exact facts.
Reports of risk-bearing air misses have dropped from 45 in 1977 to 13 in 1987. Of course there is an element of subjective judgment, but the. reporting criteria have not changed and the trend is clear. It is not only a British experience but a worldwide one. I am sure that the House would want to reassure the travelling public, and our main task is to ensure that the air safety trend is sustained. Improvements in aircraft design will probably be the major contributing factor, but the European Community harmonisation of airworthiness certificates will be a significant step forward.
The Civil Aviation Authority plans to introduce a ground-based "conflict alert" system by next summer covering all aircraft flying above 25,000 ft, and it is starting trials on airborne collision avoidance systems this year. In all of that, the CAA has the support of my Department and I am determined to support its efforts to improve air safety. For that reason, last year the CAA introduced the system of flow control in response to growing demands on air space. It is extremely important that the House appreciates that demand.
I see no reason why air safety should not continue to improve, but we must not cut corners on safety to relieve congestion at airports.

Mr. Spearing: rose——

Mr. Channon: I am sorry, but I must press on.
The House will be aware that air transport has increased in recent years by an enormous amount. Increases in demand were anticipated and catered for by Governments and operators. However, the rapid growth on some routes, especially to Greece and Spain, took every European aviation authority by surprise.
There is no overall shortage of capacity at airports or among airlines. Europe's air traffic control system can accommodate normal traffic levels easily enough. They can even handle the abnormally high traffic levels that are experienced on the most popular routes at peak periods. However, there is little capacity to spare if something goes wrong.
European countries are dependent on each other's air traffic control systems. A problem in one system, whether caused by an industrial dispute or a technical hitch, has an immediate impact on other systems. In recent weeks, we have seen the consequences of that all too clearly.
Everyone understands the frustrations caused by long delays at airports. No one saves up to spend their holidays at Gatwick or Luton; they want to get off to Greece, Spain or wherever. We shall do all we can to help, but there are a number of things that we cannot do. We cannot sort out other countries' strikes, nor must we subject people living


near airports to a night flights free-for-all. I was grateful to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North for his remarks about that. Above all, we cannot compromise on safety. Within those constraints, we are doing everything possible to alleviate congestion.
As a first step—my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) referred to this a moment ago —I have changed the traffic distribution rules so that charter operators can take advantage of spare capacity at Heathrow, on a temporary basis, to help holidaymakers who face hardship. That has already happened.
I have also asked the CAA to report to me on various matters relating to airport use and capacity. I have asked for an interim report in the autumn, when the Select Committee's report should also be available, followed by a full report later. Among the issues on which the CAA will have to report to me are sectorisation, discrimination against general aviation and the priority given to larger aircraft. They are difficult issues.
In the long term, we must increase our air traffic control capacity. The CAA plans to implement its new central control system by the mid-1990s, as part of its £250 million investment programme. It has the Government's full support in that—we have never yet blocked any CAA investment. However, it takes time to phase in a new system, while maintaining a 24-hour service that must be perfect all the time.
Air congestion is not a purely, or even primarily, a British problem. It is a European problem, to which we must find European solutions. The CAA took the lead in establishing a "hotline" that will help Europe's air traffic controllers to improve traffic flows. We have made British equipment available to our German colleagues to help them to participate. We have used our presidency of the Commission to move Eurocontrol into more effective action. To be truly effective, however, Eurocontrol needs to bring together all the nations concerned. Greece has just taken the decision to join Eurocontrol and last week I wrote to Transport Ministers in Denmark, Italy and Spain urging them to do likewise. I have also spoken this morning to my German counterpart about ways of improving co-operation between us.
The Government and the CAA are working together to find practical solutions to the problem of congestion. Airspace is, in the last analysis, a finite resource, but I am convinced that we could make much better use of it than we do at present. We must get much better co-ordination between the air traffic control authorities of Europe. In the next few weeks, I shall devote a great deal of attention to that.

Sir Anthony Grant: Will my right hon. Friend discuss with Defence Ministers, and possibly his European colleagues, whether there is a possibility of European military using rather less space and making more available for civilian purposes?

Mr. Channon: I have discussed that with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. My hon. Friend will be aware that one of the advantages of our system is that it is a joint one operating between military and civilian aircraft for the control of air traffic space. That gives us certain advantages that are not available to some other countries.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North has criticised us for having an irresponsible transport policy, but we have

done more for transport infrastructure than any other Government in our history. Since 1979, we have added nearly 800 miles of new trunk roads and motorways.

Mr. Tony Banks: Why not repair the ones that we have?

Mr. Channon: We are going to do that too. When the Labour party left office, it left a terrible legacy of backlogs in road repairs and Underground repairs and improvements. That was the "Banks legacy".
The schemes that we have undertaken cover the whole range of improvement, from short stretches of bypass to the construction of motorways. We have increased expenditure on road building by 30 per cent. in real terms and expenditure on road maintenance has doubled.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North, in an extravagant turn of phrase, said that British Rail morale was low, but British Rail has never done better than under this Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come on!"] That certainly is true. British Rail has undertaken major projects such as the electrification of the east coast main line. It has carried forward its programme of modernising rolling stock and, since 1983, it has opened or reopened some 80 stations. British Rail has invested nearly £2 billion since 1983 and it plans to spend about £4 billion more in the next five years. We have undertaken a far larger programme of investment in real terms in British Rail than that carried out by the Labour party when it was in office. It pays lip service to the railways when it is in office, but its investment programme in BR was negligible.

Mr. Peter Snape: The same old story.

Mr. Channon: It is a jolly good story, and it is true and accurate.
We have secured the increase in capital investment by keeping a tight rein on current expenditure. We insist on value for money, particularly in the roads programme. Nowadays, contractors complete their work within budget and ahead of time—something that was virtually unheard of in the bad old days. We are no longer in the business of doling out grants for this and subsidies for that. Privatisation, which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North has laughed at, has led to enormous savings. Industries that used to be dependent on the taxpayer are now paying their own way—and prospering, as the employee shareholders of Associated British Ports and the National Freight Consortium can testify.
In recent years, we have seen imaginative new solutions to long-standing transport problems. Within a few miles of this House is London's flourishing docklands community, represented by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). It is served by the Docklands light railway, by the Thamesline riverbus and by the City airport.

Mr. Spearing: The Secretary of State will be aware that the City airport had some problems with the CAA. Is he also aware that my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and myself regarded the tests that were conducted at the weekend as invalid? The loads involved were not the same as those that would pertain when the aircraft are operating. That airport was imposed upon us by the unelected London Docklands development corporation. In the cause of safety, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there will be a public


inquiry into all aspects of safety, particularly as the runway is close to large centres of population and projected shopping centres?

Mr. Channon: I have no application before me for any change in the present procedures. If there were any they would have to follow the normal planning procedures as the hon. Gentleman is well aware.
All the examples that I have given illustrate another important point—coming up with solutions to transport problems is no longer the exclusive preserve of the public sector. The private sector is playing a much more active role than it has done for many years. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North has already referred to the largest example of private sector finance, the Channel tunnel. That is the most significant transport project in Europe and it is being funded by £6 billion of private capital. There are other examples, and there will be more to come.
Last week I announced the new rail link to Heathrow —unlike the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North, I believe that that is the right solution. It will be largely privately financed and will provide an excellent service for those who wish to travel to the airport. Next week I shall be attending the Dartford tunnel handover, paving the way for another major private sector transport project. When such projects are brought into the reckoning, alongside Government-funded schemes, it is clear that we are seeing an unprecedented regeneration of the nation's transport infrastructure.
What a contrast there is between the picture painted by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North and Conservative party policy. The Opposition do not have a transport policy—at any rate none has been published yet——

Mr. Robert Hughes: Yes, we do.

Mr. Channon: Where is it? I looked at the Labour policy review—I spent a weary hour reading it—but there was not a word about transport policy. Transport and defence are too difficult for the Opposition to handle. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have lunch with the Independent; then we will know his transport policy.
The Government have a clear policy based on clear principles: value for money, efficiency, investment and, above ail, safety. We are taking the decisions to put that policy into practice and developing a transport network fit for the next century. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North and his hon. Friends are living in the past. They have nothing to do with their time but criticise. They have nothing constructive to say. I hope that the House will support our amendment.

Mrs. Gwynneth Dunwoody: I always enjoy watching Conservative Ministers sliding out from under the burden of their transport policies. They bear a strong resemblance to break dancers. The trouble is that their facility, always worth looking at, is not always terribly admirable.
Conservative party transport policy has resulted in making it difficult to get from anywhere to anywhere. That does not apply only to people sitting in airports, but to those who try to use the motorways and the train services. Tonight I shall speak briefly about two important results of Conservative policy of the past nine years. No matter

how often they reel off vast numbers of statistics, the Government have no basic transport policy. They have made it clear over a number of years that they have no airport policy, either. In due course the Select Committee will report on that lack of policy. It was clear even from the Minister's speech tonight that the Conservatives are not prepared to plan to make radical plans for the numbers of people using the airports. They are even prepared to try to ignore the immediate results of their inability to face the facts.
There is a real problem with air traffic control. The Minister spoke of flow control and the difficulties at Maastricht. He spoke about the inability of all the other European nations to work together. He did not mention the inability of the Conservative Government to support European control policies, even if that was what they wanted to do. He did not point out that flow policies can at best be only a form of crisis management and were never intended to be the usual day-to-day way of organising traffic into and out of important airports. They were intended as temporary measures and, like a great many other such measures, they are turning out to be all too permanent. When the Select Committee reports, I know that it will have a great deal to say about those aspects of Government policy.
I shall deal first with the deregulation of the buses. My constituency provides a classic case of what happens when basic transport services are entered in a haphazard game of chance. When the National Bus Company was divided up, members of Cheshire county council went to the Secretary of State for Transport and told him that they had evidence that one of the main bidders—indeed, the one most likely to be selected—for Crossville Motor Vehicles Co. had a bad record of managing previous companies. The council members did not make up that information. It was based on decisions taken by the north-west traffic commissioners. When the company had operated in other parts of the north-west it had frequently had its licence to operate reduced in considerable numbers. The Minister listened to all that and said that it was not a matter for him but was the responsibility of the National Bus Company.
It became clear from answers to questions that I asked subsequently, when ATL holdings bought Crossville Motor Vehicles Co., that any problems with the reliability of that company were regarded as the responsibility of the NBC. That is the marvellous double bind. Assets can be sold in any way that people like, and if there is a problem the Minister will say it is not his fault but that of the National Bus Company, which by then no longer exists. So when we want to argue about the quality of ministerial decisions that allow such sales to go ahead, we are told that everything is the National Bus Company's responsibility.
What happened in Crewe was simple and uncomplicated. The company is doing there exactly what it has done before. First, it ran down the number of maintenance engineers. Then it sold off the maintenance garage. Thirdly, it decided to get rid of the central bus station and offer an alternative somewhere outside the centre of town. In other words, that was a classic example of asset-stripping, and that was what we said it would be before these people were allowed to bid for the assets. We predicted what would happen when the legislation went through the House—and that sort of thing has happened again and again.
The safety of passengers is of no concern to the company. If it were, it would not have been before the


traffic commissioners and had its licences reduced as often as it has done. The interests of the people of Crewe and Nantwich are of no concern to the company, either, or it would not have sold off the only town centre bus station that was capable of handling the constituency's needs. Furthermore, the relationship between bus transport and other forms of transport is of no interest to the company. It is not prepared to discuss interlinking or the planning of joint services. The company is one of those that move in, buy up assets, take away as much as they can carry in both hands and then apologise for being unable to comply with the undertakings that were asked for originally, because they cannot—a classic case of the results of Conservative transport policy.
Such problems are not restricted to the buses. The other important employer in Crewe is the railway industry. Time and again we have witnessed the effects of Government policy on the railways. The railways are not important to the Government. The Secretary of State gave us statistics to prove that he had offered the railways whatever investment they wanted, but he never points out that, because the railway services must comply with wholly unrealistic financial targets, basic services are deteriorating at such a speed that most passengers experience difficulties every day——

Mr. Michael Jack: Does the hon. Lady agree that the introduction of new electric locomotives on the west coast main line will enhance the service to her constituency?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I have no difficulty in encouraging the building of new locomotives. I trust that the jobs that are involved will not be handed to foreign companies—such as the Americans—or to any other companies that submit interesting but not necessarily 100 per cent. accurate estimates of cost.
When asked to examine what is happening to rail traffic in this country, an independent consultant made it clear that British Rail is planning to turn away 3 per cent. of its customers and that it is running its services in a way that is grossly unacceptable to its customers. The independent consultant NERA, working for the Rail Federation, found numerous examples of overloading and suggested, for example, that between Carlisle and Crewe the overloading factor was 200 per cent. That means expensive seats for passengers—if they are lucky. More often than not they find it impossible to travel in comfort, and they are constantly faced with rising fares and falling standards. Yet we are told not to worry because British Rail is prepared to invest a great deal.
The Channel tunnel shows the quality of planning under the Government. I went to the chairman of British Rail and pointed out that in the Crewe and Nantwich area we have an ideal site for a Customs and Excise facility and for the transhipment of goods. We were told that BR was prepared to look enthusiastically at any plans put before it. There has been no real response by British Rail to the immediate difficulties that will arise when the Channel tunnel is in operation. No decisions have been made. As far as British Rail can see, running times between London and the coast seem to be all right as long as the whole journey is within three hours.
French railways have put an enormous amount of money and effort into providing a first-class service between Paris and the coast. It will be possible to run

trains through the tunnel at great speed, but when those trains reach the British coast they will have to slow down to little more than 26 or 28 mph. It seems to be difficult for British Rail to understand that passengers might not be too delighted at that. Even the plans now being suggested by British Rail do not make it clear that it is prepared to move at the speed and with the urgency that will make the difference.
I have heard that the amount of money that the French railways are prepared to invest would ensure that French trains could run as far as Ashford, at which point French railways expect that freight and people would be put on the road. That is not an unrealistic assessment, and it will begin to happen if British Rail is not prepared to improve facilities and to update running times and the provision of rolling stock and locomotives on this line. I see no signs from British Rail that it even understands the implications of this measure.

Mr. Irvine Patnick: Having looked at the corporate plan for British Rail I see that it is spending £180 million on new traction and rolling stock on the east coast line. It is also spending money on the west coast main line. To say that it is not spending money is twisting the facts.

Mrs. Dunwoody: If the hon. Gentleman reads what I said, he may understand the point. We know that no matter what British Rail says, it intends to balance the books by getting rid of thousands of railwaymen. That can hardly contribute to the safety and comfort of passengers. it also intends to balance the books in such a way that even the improvement of rolling stock will not be carried out in British Rail workshops, but will be used as a means of offering support and jobs to other countries.
To the Government, transport is way down the line in terms of investment and policies. The passenger is the last person that they are prepared to think about. Whether one travels from Manchester on the Shuttle that cannot get into London airport, or on a train that goes through Crewe and on which first-class passengers, let alone standard passengers, are not able to find seats, the reality of Conservative transport policy is less for more and under more difficult circumstances. It is not a policy of which the Government can be proud.

Mr. Peter Fry: I have a great regard for the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) who said that she could not get to where she wanted to go. Much is now clear to me. She is obviously emulating the lady in the music hall song:
Oh, Mr. Porter, what shall I do?
I want to go to Birmingham,
But I ended up in Crewe.
That is a slight digression. I shall not follow the line taken by the hon. Lady. This is a short debate and it can cover everything from air misses to the quality of tea on British Rail. All that any of us can do is pick one or two subjects and try to air them. I shall restrict myself to the subject of air congestion and the need of the traveling public for an adequate transport infrastructure.
The Select Committee on Transport, of which I have been a member since its inception, is currently investigating air safety and runway capacity, especially in the south-east. I cannot anticipate our report, nor can I reveal any of the information because it is not generally


made public at this stage. However, I must comment on the debate that is now raging on who is to be blamed for the congestion and delays experienced by so many people, particularly those who want to go on holiday.
I should make it quite clear that the blame is most definitely not to be laid at the door of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. It is his duty to respond to the advice given to him by the Civil Aviation Authority and it is the duty of the CAA so to advise. As he said, he recently requested an early response from the CAA on its suggestions about how the present situation may be eased. He had to ask for that response, and that is significant. Clearly, before the crisis that built up this summer, he did not have the advice that he needs, and that is why he had to ask for it.
Secondly, and perhaps surprisingly to some people, the problems are not the sole fault of the present chairman of the CAA—[Interruption.] I said, not the sole fault of the chairman of the CAA. Mistakes have been made in the past, and as he is the current front man he has to take the criticism. In due course the Select Committee may pronounce on the CAA's share of the responsibility. However, it is worth quoting to the House at least two of its defences. First, the CAA is not responsible for the actions of foreign air traffic controllers and, secondly, it does not arrange the schedules of the various airlines.
It is also untrue to say that no responsibility at all should be attached to any airline for the present congestion. The schedule set by some operators of four or five return flights per day by one plane would be testing enough at any time of the year. Given the kind of congestion that occurs in the summer peaks, some airline scheduling has been more than optimistic and on the verge of being foolhardy. This problem has not been uniformly shared because delays have arisen with some companies far more than with others. When the CAA and the Government come to consider solutions to alleviate problems that may arise next year and in the ensuing years, tight scheduling must be investigated.
The main reason for congestion at our airports is simply the increase in demand about which my right hon. Friend spoke. It is not true to say that the rise in demand was clearly seen by all the airlines even last year. We must ask why the increase has taken place. It is simply because more of our people are better off and more of them can afford to fly, often more than once a year. Therefore, the problem is of economic success and widespread affluence —not the kind of picture of the United Kingdom in 1988 that the Opposition try to paint. This picture of affluence applies throughout transport. That is why 2·3 million new vehicles took to the roads in 1987 and why projections show that by the year 2000 car ownership will increase by about 20 per cent. to 25 million. Traffic could increase even more as people use their vehicles more regularly.
Congestion on our roads raises the question of road safety. I shall insert a caveat here, because, while it is absolutely legitimate for us to be anxious about this matter, we must put it in perspective. Road deaths today are only 13 per cent. higher than they were in 1926 and we have 10 times the number of vehicles on our roads. Even in the past 12 years road deaths have been reduced by 20 per cent., while vehicles have increased by 22 per cent. One

reason for the improved record on our roads is that we have a far better motorway network than for many years. That brings me to my main point.
The increased demand for transport that we are experiencing will mean that a better and more sophisticated infrastructure is needed. An inadequate infrastructure will only lead to more accidents. Accidents on our roads are often due to the sheer frustration that many motorists experience after being in long traffic jams or to being unable to overtake on inadequate roads.

Mr. Skinner: Give us some infrastructure.

Mr. Fry: Of course, there will be those who say that the road safety measures that we have at the moment still need tightening up. Perhaps they are right,; such measures are an inadequate answer to the congestion that we are facing and to the frustration being experienced by some road users.
I say to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who I understand will reply to the debate—I hope he will take my remarks as well-intentioned—that sometimes, when he is quoted in the media, his comments suggest that road safety measures can, perhaps achieve rather more than they can, and the main obligation to provide more roads sometimes tends to be lost. That is why some people perhaps criticise him rather unfairly.
Greater road safety alone cannot be a sufficient answer. Of course we can say that lower speeds will reduce accidents. We can produce statistics to show that a speed limit of 50 miles per hour will produce fewer accidents than a speed limit of 70 miles per hour, but we could reduce that argument to an absurd level. A traffic speed of one mile per hour would produce very few accidents. On the other hand, the effect upon our economy would undoubtedly be disastrous. We cannot all go by train, because the trains do not always go where we want to go. That is sometimes forgotten by protagonists in this area.
Our journeys today are becoming increasingly diverse and sophisticated. The sheer congestion on the roads is opening up great opportunities for rail, and light rail, and that challenge is to be met by British Rail and local authorities in the immediate future.
I am not convinced that random breath testing will be approved by those who experience it, quite apart from the people who answer opinion polls on the subject.

Mr. Skinner: Said he, with first-hand experience.

Mr. Fry: Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that I have been breath-tested on the motorway and was found to be totally clear; but it is not a pleasant experience to go through, and many innocent motorists will reject random testing on the ground that it is an intrusion into their personal liberties.
If the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) wishes to make a speech, perhaps he can catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the normal way. I am sure that if I sat and spoke to him while he was speaking, the House would not think that that was the way to conduct its affairs.

Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fry: I would not give the hon. Gentleman anything, even the time of the day.

Mr. Skinner: Very droll.

Mr. Fry: I hope that the Government, despite the pressure from some sources of the media and other lobbies, will not allow completely random testing.
The traveller's safety does not depend on road safety measures alone. Much depends, whether we travel by road, rail or air, on an adequate infrastructure. Our people will travel more, and more often. They can afford it, and it is the Government's responsibility to assist them. I praise the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State because he has clearly seen the need for the better service that is being demanded. To his great credit, he has clearly seen that it is unlikely that the Treasury will provide sufficient public funds to provide that infrastructure in full. That is why I applaud his efforts to encourage people to talk and to become involved in the private funding of various transport projects. The Channel tunnel, the Dartford bridge, the City airport and the new Heathrow railroad are all excellent, but we must regard them only as a start.

Mr. David Tredinnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents and many people living in Leicestershire hope that private funding can be found to electrify the midland main line to Sheffield?

Mr. Fry: My hon. Friend knows that I am a joint Chairman of the all-party Committee concerned with that subject, and that the Committee shares his view.

Mr. Skinner: Speak for the midland main line electrification.

Mr. Fry: We shall try to avoid the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
The public are demanding a higher standard of service and the Government are finding it increasingly difficult to finance it entirely from state funds. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has my full support in examining every possible scheme for the involvement of private money and private risk-taking. We should look beyond just building new bridges or new airports by private finance, because we must consider how we shall obtain better public transport in our cities, better through communications and more motorways, by-passes and access roads.
Not all the schemes put forward will be financially viable, but many urban roads will give much better access and open up areas of redevelopment, which will be highly profitable to developers. Surely those same developers who will make the profit should therefore be expected to make a greater contribution to new road building. Similarly, it is essential that the Treasury's Ryrie rules, which reduce the Department of Transport's spending budget by the amount of the mixed public-private investment, must be revised and probably changed.
My right hon. Friend is entirely right to think the unthinkable in terms of transport provision, whether it be toll roads or privately funded rail extensions. He, at least, is a man of strong vision and energy, as well as being a realist. It is the Opposition's thinking on transport which appears to be stuck in a 1950s time warp, where subsidy is the sole answer. The Secretary of State is prepared to look to the future and to find any means to secure greater safety and services for the travelling public. I shall have no hesitation in supporting him in the Lobby tonight.

Mrs. Ray Michie: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) on joining the Department of Transport. I congratulate also the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) on his recent honour. I am sorry to see him leave the Department of Transport. In my short time in the House I found him to be a Minister who was prepared to listen. He was always kind, courteous and helpful. I wish him well on the Back Benches.
I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate. It is right that we should consider safety and the service to the travelling public. The condition of the urban environment has worsened during the past decade. There is greater traffic congestion—none more so than in the City of London—more air pollution and a poorer, but more expensive public transport system. Many of the deficiencies have been catalogued, such as the sight of holidaymakers stuck for hours at airports or on a motorway for two hours negotiating a three-mile contraflow. Traffic is increasing by 13 per cent. every year and the roads and motorways can no longer cope.
It is a costly and dangerous situation. We have suffered from a lack of planning, vision, foresight and political will, and successive Governments must share the blame. [Interruption.] Fundamental errors were made by cutting road maintenance programmes—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I am having some difficulty in hearing the hon. Lady.

Mrs. Michie: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Fundamental errors were made by cutting road maintenance programmes in the 1970s, slashing the railway network from 17,000 to 10,000 miles, and even withdrawing the trams from our cities. What complete folly that was.

Mr. Tony Banks: I agree with the hon. Lady. Trams were one of London's great transport boons. She may not have heard, but a Conservative Member said from a sedentary position that the withdrawal of trams was a Socialist policy. The last tram journey, on which I had the great honour to travel as a babe in arms, was in 1953, when we had a Conservative Government. I just remind the hon. Lady of that because she is obviously too young to remember herself.

Mrs. Michie: I wonder who was the younger travelling on the trams. Trams were also withdrawn from Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh, and that was a terrible mistake.
City transport is a focus for employment, education, retailing, leisure and health care. Cities must depend on transport to function, for the movement of goods and people. This vital service has a considerable impact on the quality of life of those living in the cities. Surely the challenge is to find a compromise between competing demands for mobility and a decent environment. There is no doubt that the urban environment has worsened during the last decade. As I said, there is greater traffic congestion, more air pollution and a poorer, but more expensive, public transport system. Pedestrians in particular have had a raw deal. Abused by motorists and intoxicated by exhaust fumes, they need standards of Olympian fitness, or the mentality of moles, if they are to use some of the pedestrian bridges or subways.
The result is that our environment has deteriorated and our standard of living has suffered accordingly. Nowhere is that more true than on the streets where we live. It is our children who have suffered most as a consequence. Because of the dangers of excessive traffic, which is often allowed to travel far to fast, children no longer have the freedom to visit their neighbours without being escorted by an adult, let alone the freedom to play in the streets or cycle to school, and it is often only the street that they can play in because of the lack of playground facilities.
Let me say a quick word about the railways. We have never made the best use of our railways. The cuts and the colossal lack of investment have been a huge mistake. Financially British Rail may say that it is doing better, but at what cost? There is surely room now in which to improve the service to the public. The great mistake that was made was the lack of co-ordination between rail and road transport. There was no co-ordination of freight, and that was one of the failures of nationalisation. It is terrible that freight is carried up and down our roads on huge juggernauts. It should be taken by rail to freight depots spotted all over the country, and thereafter the containers taken to wherever they are required. If containers can be taken on and off ferries, they can be taken on and off trains. That is not a problem.
We have referred to the loss of trams. I hope that the Minister will encourage the expansion of the light rail transit system, to improve safety and reduce congestion —we are looking for that in the midland metro light rail transit system—to relieve pollution, to allow motorists to park and ride and to allow people to shop in a traffic-free environment. The Government talk about privatisation and the private money that must accompany it, but I want to hear how that will help the integration of our transport services.

Mr. David Clelland: The hon. Lady may be aware that Tyne and Wear did have such integration between the light railway system and the buses, but that that has been destroyed by the Governments privatisation policy. The Government have destroyed integration and the promotion of co-ordination. Their privatisation policies led, first, to duplication, and eventually to the elimination of transport systems for the general public.

Mrs. Michie: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. The Government must not turn their back on integration. That means planning a variety of public transport services to meet identified transport needs in such a way that passenger transfer between services is helped. Passengers should not have to wait a long time between buses, between a bus and a train or between trains. Such changes should be convenient and the ticket should be valid on both services.
However, integration alone is not a panacea. Considerable investment is required to make up for years of neglect of the public transport system. The numbers of maintenance and running staff employed need to be increased if service reliability, cleanliness and passenger safety are to be restored to acceptable levels. We are looking for a better quality service.
We have talked about holidaymakers, but I hope that Ministers and others involved will also think about the ordinary domestic travellers. I should like to see much

more traffic going out of airports in the regions of England and the nation of Scotland—from Glasgow, Edinburgh and Prestwick. I hope that the Minister understands that the Scots hate having to travel to London before going on to——

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: So do the Mancunians.

Mrs. Michie: I am talking about the Scots, not about the Mancunians.
In order to understand what the general public have to put up with, Ministers, and, indeed, the Prime Minister, should give up their ministerial cars for three weeks and move 400 or 500 miles away from the House and then travel here and back twice a week. They should see how they get on with trains that leave and arrive an hour late, and aeroplanes that leave Glasgow half an hour late and circle over Heathrow for 25 minutes. The situation is diabolical. My goodness, no wonder we want a Scottish Parliament, so that we do not have to do that twice a week. I believe that the Government's amendment is very bland.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: It is a terrible amendment, not bland.

Mrs. Michie: I hope that the Government will answer many of the points that have been raised, particularly that about integrating the transport services.

Mr. Terence Higgins: This motion takes no account of the tremendous success of the Government's transport policy in allocating massive amounts to additional infrastructure in every form of transport and in using resources more efficiently by eliminating wasteful subsidies. It is important to start from that point. I join the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and other hon. Members who have congratulated my hon. Friend for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) on his new appointment. We certainly wish him well.
I also join those who have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), who has every reason to be pleased with and proud of his ministerial career. We have known each other for a long time. We were both selected as parliamentary candidates in the same week, and whereas I failed to get on the short list for his constituency, he got on the short list for mine. Ever since, I have noted with great interest the tremendous contribution that he has made to the House both from the Back Benches and as a Minister. I feel sure that he will continue to make a very important contribution.
I wish to concentrate on road and air transport. I begin by stressing the importance of the Government's commitment that through traffic should be taken away from towns, and I do so for important constituency reasons. The Government recently appointed a firm of consultants to look into the future route of the A27 in the Worthing area, and their proposals would effectively cut the town in two. What we need is a real bypass. At constituency meetings in recent days attended by 400, 900 and well over 1,000 people, there have been strong protests against the consultants' proposals. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will take that feeling into account and ensure that Worthing is given a real bypass, in the same way that every town and almost every village of any


size on the south coast has been provided with a bypass along what will clearly be, in view of the Channel tunnel, the main east-west route for the south.
Other aspects of road transport that require particular attention concern both London and the inner cities, and motorways. The Government are doing far less then they could to facilitate road transport both in the cities and on the motorways. The present policy in London in particular needs to be carefully reviewed in respect of coaches and bus lanes. I am convinced that in many places, if not all, bus lanes seriously slow down traffic flow, and as my right hon. Friend will know, the way in which coaches are allowed to park all over the place and to interfere with traffic flow—not least disgorging passengers in the centre of Westminster bridge, with great risk of loss of life— should be carefully examined. Other proposals for improving traffic flow have proved to be disastrous—such as the Aldwych, which was the GLC's final kick before it——

Mr. Tony Banks: rose——

Mr. Higgins: No, I shall not give way.
The GLC, in its final kick, introduced a system at Aldwych that has totally fouled up the traffic every day ever since. I hope that the Government will reinstate the original arrangement at the Aldwych, which was much better than the present one. It is important that the Government take action. I feel sure that London's traffic flow can be improved, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend is establishing a specific study to examine the matter.
As to motorway traffic, I welcome the acceptance of the idea that 70 mph signs, rather than signs taking the form only of white circles with a black diagonal, should be erected on motorways, to remind motorists using them of the real speed limit. I hope that that experiment will be successful and helpful in ensuring that the speed regulations, which I believe are set at the right limits, are observed more rigorously than they are at present.
What really concerns me are the appalling hold-ups that occur on motorways because steps have not been taken to divert traffic away from a blockage. A few weeks ago, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will know, I suffered an appalling experience when I had to wait about 50 minutes at the junction of the M25 and the M23. That was because a machine was apparently being used to test the road surface at a time when there was a massive amount of traffic on the motorway. All that was needed was one sign at the junction warning of the blockage and directing traffic to another route. I do not believe that the delegation of authority from the Department to county councils takes any account of the need to improve motorway traffic flow, when just a little advanced planning and concentration of thought could make a tremendous difference.
I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will seriously consider setting up a small unit within the Department of Transport that will be notified of all likely major hold-ups and then make sure that action is taken to divert traffic. The waste of resources that currently results from such confusion is often wholly avoidable. That is something on which the Government could reasonably take effective action. Having said that, it

must also be recognised that the Government's road building programme is making considerable progress, and I trust that it will continue.
The other point I wish to stress concerns air traffic control. The chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority has been most unfairly criticised over situations that developed as the combined result of several industrial disputes in other countries and the extremely tight schedules set by charter operators, whereby any minor disruption of their programme results in considerable disruption. That combination was the crux of many recent problems and there was nothing that either the CAA or the Government could reasonably have done, given the situation that had been created before the present difficulties arose.
However, it is important that we should not give way to those pressure groups that argue that there should be more night flights. It would be wrong for huge numbers of people to be seriously inconvenienced by an extension of night flight schedules. We tend to express too much concern about aircraft take-offs while ignoring landings. In my constituency, I constantly receive complaints about the level of night noise. The Government have done something to divert certain routes to less populous areas, with the result that there has been an improvement.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will stand firm against those who argue for an extension of night take-offs and will also look carefully at what appear to be completely unnecessary landings at, for example, Heathrow. They disturb many people at something like 5.20 in the morning. There is no need for large numbers of people to be inconvenienced for the sake of a few hundreds' convenience.
The Government have constantly claimed—I believe this is true—that it is not lack of resources that has resulted in air traffic control problems. However, we must carefully consider whether the Government's proposals for central control functions, which are designed to help in the future, cannot be brought forward from 1995. That time horizon surely ought to be shortened, and I cannot believe that the changes envisaged are such that they need to be introduced over that length of time. We are all aware of the considerable difficulties being experienced with that part of the programme, but everything possible must be done to ensure its implementation without the kind of delay that is envisaged.
There are many other subjects on which I might be tempted to speak; in particular, in declaring my interest as a council member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists —totally unpaid, I might add. It is important that we should encourage people to engage in better training after they have passed the present test, which is not sufficiently thorough to ensure that drivers are capable of driving safely in all conditions.
I am tempted also to discuss trams, which were referred to a moment ago. I once had the pleasure of successfully moving an amendment that secured the perpetuation of trams in Blackpool. The main advantage of London trams seemed to me that they were operated by members of a different union from those who operated the buses, which meant that they did not both strike at the same time.
The Government are putting in vastly more resources than before, and many aspects of their policy are now extremely successful. I hope very much that the House will reject the Opposition motion, which is superficial and partisan and the sort of thing that we might expect at this time of year.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: One of the fundamental factors in any consideration of the state of transport must involve the public's view. The public appear to have little say in what happens, yet by any reasonable test of the conditions of our present transport system the number of public complaints is higher than ever, and the House should take serious account of that.
I think that for our present purpose we can ignore the transport experts, many of whom have been indifferent to public opinion. They know best. Members of Parliament are often frustrated when presenting a case involving their reaction to a legitimate public complaint. What we get is an exciting stir of indifference in the Department of Transport. When the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) talks of more resources being spent on transport than ever before, I cannot disagree, except to suggest that after eight years of Conservative government, the Secretary of State's excuse that he has been dealing with conditions inherited by the present Administration is beginning to wear a little thin. The public are not convinced by that kind of political observation, and it wastes time in the House. While we have perhaps improved the allocation of resources, the concern of the public about the inconvenience caused to them suggests that we have done too little, often too late.
Towards the end of his speech, the Secretary of State said that this was an excellent story. He presented the House with an excessive degree of heavy breathing. It is not an excellent story at all. Let us look at one of the four considerations in his approach to transport—safety. It is a remarkable habit of the House and indeed the country to become more keenly concerned about safety after an accident. We organise inquiries promptly, without hesitation; we wait for some months for their reports; then, as time passes, we seem to wait for the next accident.
Is the Secretary of State really satisfied with safety levels? Will he not admit that the Department has not once taken on board a semblance of responsibility for the conditions that led up to the ferry accident at Zeebrugge? We know where the real culprit is, but the Department has procrastinated. It has been lethargic about pinpointing responsibility. As I recall, most of the blame was placed on two individuals, but where does the real responsibility lie? Despite assurances in the House that something would be done about the conditions that led to the accident, we hear reports from the crews of other ferries that the same laxity prevails. One ferry went about its business, albeit within the port, with the doors open at the front where vehicles are loaded.
Is it enough to say that safety is one of our main considerations? What about the responsible reports of people who have spent a lifetime on the airways? Are the pilots wrong about near misses, or are the official reports wrong? Of whom should we take notice—the pilots who experienced a near-mishap, or the reports churned out by a tiresome bureaucracy with no personal involvement? The country is becoming involved, entirely unprofessionally, in passing the buck.
How does the House feel about roads? Last year I travelled in Europe for some 4,000 miles and never saw a single roadworks. I returned to this country and was soon sick and tired of being stopped. We want large sums to be spent on roadworks, but we have built road systems to be unable to deal with the developing traffic circumstances.
When travelling to my constituency—if I travel within the law, as I suppose I must—I can get pretty far up the road to the north-east until I come across those wonderful inhuman things called cones, or Daleks. I am stuck there until I am fed up to the back teeth. Such conditions can promote accidents, and a good deal needs to be spent to put them right.
If, however, I decide to travel by rail, what happens? I get to Darlington—as I may tomorrow evening if sensible people on both sides of the House ensure that the vote is before 7 o'clock—but I then cannot get a train to take me the 21 miles to my constituency. I can afford to pay for a taxi, but what about the dear old lady or the young wife with her bairns? Taxis are costly. They have to catch a bus. To reach the bus stop they have to walk for over a mile and when they catch the bus it goes in and out of little villages and they have a very long ride.
This country has lost a great opportunity to integrate its transport system to meet the requirements of the public—not the requirements of politicians who have allowances and who can ride in their cars. We are not meeting the requirements of the public, because we have never measured up to the great economic benefits that an integrated transport system would provide. We had such a system in Tynemouth. We could get on and off the metro, using the same ticket. Because the bus system was integrated, people could move quickly within the area and, better still, get home quickly. That was stopped. Obeying the orders of the House, I had to chair the Committee on the Bill that led to the deregulation of transport. The result is that even in the smallest towns, six or seven buses are now fighting for customers.

Mr. Clelland: When I put that point to the Secretary f State for the Environment, he replied that deregulation had led to buses queuing for people instead of people queuing for buses. If that is the Secretary of State's view of efficiency, it is no wonder that our transport system is in such a mess.

Mr. Leadbitter: I can think of no better way to round off my contribution than with my hon. Friend's intervention. I had decided to speak only for a short while. I look at the clock and, out of respect for other hon. Members, both before me and behind me, I shall sit down.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: I agree with the point that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) made about safety. Concern about safety should always be at the forefront of our minds. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that no Secretary of State for Transport, or his Ministers, could operate a successful transport policy without having the needs of the public at the forefront of their minds. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is disappointing that safety matters are not aired in this House as often as they should be and that they are always aired after a sad and tragic event. We have had our bellyful of such events this year.
I join in the paean of praise to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell). He always took the trouble to listen to what hon. Members on both sides of the House had to say about transport matters. He dealt with us all with great courtesy and


effectiveness. The Government will be the poorer without him. However, the Department of Transport will be greatly enriched by the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo). Within a short period he brought a unique distinction to his ministerial office. We congratulate him and wish him success in his new office.
The quite exceptional growth in the economy and the real earnings that have gone with it have enabled more people to travel—and a very good thing, too. However, considering the history of economic growth in this country, it is hardly surprising that the Department of Transport and other Departments with responsibility for forecasting traffic growth have not got their sums right. Because of the very heavy burdens that he has recently had to bear, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of Transport will be more aware than anybody else of the fact that the forecasting errors that have been made in the past of traffic on the roads and in the air are unacceptable and must never be allowed to happen again, in so far as it is possible to prevent them.
I intend to deal with two separate transport matters —aviation and roads. The British aviation industry is one of our great economic success stories. The transformation of British Airways under the exceptional leadership of Lord King and Sir Colin Marshall, the remarkable efforts of people such as Michael Bishop of British Midland Airways Ltd., of Harry Goodman of Air Europe, of Peter Villa of British Island Airways and of Britannia, Dan-Air and many others, has resulted in an explosion of activity. It has provided much employment and prosperity for people all over the country. Long may it continue, and broader may it spread.
The people who run the airlines and the people who work in them must realise that the great, substantial and happy successes must be balanced with crucial environ-mental considerations, which are of the greatest importance to people who live near airports. The British Airports Authority, under Sir Norman Payne, has made a brilliant start in the private sector and has confounded all the horror stories that those of us who served—I shall not say, had the fun of serving—on the Standing Committee that considered the Airports Bill heard forecast for it. The BAA has gone from strength to strength. Heathrow and Gatwick are now the two busiest international airports in the world and the BAA team runs a successful and splendid enterprise, which is expanding its interests handsomely and successfully overseas.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues have more than done their bit. They have done a remarkable job in liberating air transport, both domestically and internationally, and they have done an excellent job in trying to achieve that important balance between environmental concerns and commercial success.
We are now in substantial and considerable difficulties. The problems of growth in this area, as in so many others dealt with by the Government today, are proving even harder and more intractable to manage than were the problems of decline before 1979. There is very serious congestion at airports and there are unsatisfactory delays for passengers, which are quite unacceptable. Many of the reasons for those delays are entirely unconnected with this country. The Greeks, Spaniards and French have all done their best to ruin holiday travel for our people. It is a Europewide problem, as my right hon. Friend the

Secretary of State has said. The problem must be addressed on a European scale because it is not simply a British problem.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must ensure that the directors of each international air traffic control system have their heads collectively banged together until there is a unified system over western Europe. As sure as eggs are eggs, 1992 will bring a greater demand for travel and that must be dealt with before the impact of the open market.
The remarks made by some hon. Members about the Civil Aviation Authority and its chairman and management two weeks ago were, frankly, disgraceful. I am ashamed to say that the rent-a-crowd on the Conservative Benches were largely responsible. I want to place on record my unreserved admiration for the way in which the chairman of the CAA and Keith Mack, the head of air traffic control, are coping with particularly intransigent and difficult problems. I visited the air traffic controllers in my constituency the other day and I was exhausted by watching them. They do a brilliant and highly complex job under very demanding conditions, and the most onerous and appalling responsibilities rest on their shoulders. A great deal needs to be done to improve working practices in that organisation, but huge investments have been, are being and will continue to be made in air traffic control equipment, as I am assured by the Government.
All that is happening after the horse is almost out of the box. What can be done? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is already dealing with the problem in the European dimension. I suggest that he gets hold of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and that he shakes from that appalling sink of waste every inch of military air space that he can prise from it. It is ridiculous that in 1988, when the most modern facilities for controlling air traffic exist, the military should insist on retaining in so many areas of this country vast acres of air space that are completely unnecessary for their own requirements and would greatly assist my right hon. Friend's problems.
Decisions in respect of future licences, runways, terminals and technical investments must be made, as they have been in the past, but particularly from now on, in the context of a national and international strategy for air transport.
I now turn briefly to roads. No one can deny the Government's right to claim credit for a very handsome increase in spending on the roads programme since 1979. But that is self-evidently not enough. My constituents and millions of others are daily deeply frustrated and greatly angered by road chaos. On this, as on so many matters in relation to infrastructure spending, we can and must do better.
Finally, I wish to make two key points. The public transport services require, first and foremost, far more effective direction and use of those who work in them and the resources for which they are trustees. Services must adapt to the requirements of the travelling public. My final point to my right hon. Friend is that efficiency is about doing what is right, but effectiveness, which is the true management task, is about doing the right things, as Peter Drucker said.
We must continue to invest at ever-increasing levels in the transport infrastructure of this nation if we are to begin to keep up with our continental neighbours.

Mr. David Marshall: The question that has to be posed is: do the Government have an overall policy for adequate transportation systems to meet the present and future needs of the nation, taking into account convenience, cost, safety and service? It is patently obvious that they do not. I wonder whether it is the Government's desire to encourage everyone to stay at home, as it is becoming very difficult to travel anywhere without experiencing considerable discomfort, frustration, strain, stress and worry travelling by road, rail, sea or air.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) on securing the debate as half of the Opposition Supply day debate today. Were it left to the Government, we would never have a transport debate in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) boasted about travelling as a baby on the last London tram in 1953. I believe that I can go one better, having worked for two years as a tram conductor in Glasgow until the last tram ran there in 1962.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) on securing his knighthood, and the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) on his appointment to the Ministry of Transport. I sincerely hope that he will prove to be a good Minister, particularly in relation to public transport.
I declare an interest as a Member sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union and also as the Chairman of the House of Commons Select Committee on Transport. As the House is aware, at present the Select Committee is in the middle of an inquiry into air traffic control safety and runway capacity. Therefore, I feel that it would be most improper for me to make any comment on those matters. Suffice it to say that I hope our report will be published in December, or very early in 1989. I sincerely hope that, as usual, it will contain a number of helpful and meaningful recommendations and possible solutions that the Government may see fit to accept.
As an individual hon. Member, I believe that the Select Committee was perfectly right to conduct such an inquiry, and it would have been failing in its duty had it not done so. The concern of hon. Members and of the general public is very well known, and we must always guard against complacency whenever and wherever it arises, especially in matters of safety.
There is a very strong link between congestion and safety, whether it be in the skies, on a crowded ferry boat, in a train, an underground train or on the roads and motorways of our country. Motorways are grossly overcrowded, yet astonishingly, as far as I am aware, the Government have no plans for a new motorway network to meet the expected increase in traffic on our roads in years to come. They should be ashamed of themselves, and even more ashamed that they opened the M25 with no service area facilities for motorists. They seem also to be unwilling to provide, or to encourage someone else to provide, proper facilities for HGV lorries, and long-distance coaches. Drivers and passengers need sufficient, decent places to stop for rest and refreshment.
Facilities for the disabled traveller are also a disgrace. For example, a recent Automobile Association survey found that, at six service areas, disabled people could not rely on getting access to any facilities. Perhaps not enough profit can be made out of the disabled traveller.
I make no apology for again referring to the A74 and to the Government's repeated failure to honour their election pledge to upgrade that road to motorway status along its entire length from Carlisle to Glasgow. It has a horrific accident record and is well known as a killer road. How many lives must be lost on the A74 before the Government do something about it?
Drunk driving is one of the most serious problems facing us today. When will the Government finally get their act together and do something about it? Call it random breath testing, discretionary testing, unrestricted testing—call it what one likes—but the public want action, and they want action now. In making the case against random breath testing, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said that, in other countries, only one in 200 drivers stopped is over the limit. That is a powerful argument for random tests. It suggests that people are unlikely to take a chance if they fear that there is a real risk that they will be caught.
One matter that greatly concerns me relates to motor cyclists and the terrible toll of deaths and serious injuries suffered by young bikers. Has the Secretary of State seen the admirable campaign that was recently waged by the Scottish Daily Record, which called for compulsory training before riders are even allowed on to our roads? The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), supports the campaign. Will the Secretary of State do the same, and do the sensible thing and introduce the necessary legislation as soon as possible?
The Secretary of State should also consider a publicity campaign along the "clunk-click" campaign lines, to get all drivers to use their indicators properly. He should again consider making motorway driving a part of the driving test, and providing more resources to ensure a high-profile, marked police presence on our roads. Nothing is more effective in making us better drivers than to see a police car on the same road. He should also provide much more of the £14 billion that is derived from road users than the £3 billion provided at present. Research, maintenance and construction are all in need of substantially increased funding. The wonder is not the number of accidents that take place on our roads, but that the figures are not substantially greater.
Despite the Secretary of State's claim about investment, there are no signs of any new railway lines being built, yet the present network is greatly overcrowded in many areas and could not meet an increased demand. No serious efforts have been made to transfer traffic or passengers from road to rail. Staff shortages in the south-east mean constant gaps in services and a lack of service. Overcrowding, especially on underground trains in London, must be a safety hazard and make commuting unbearable.
Why do the Government not give British Rail all the necessary resources to tackle the problems in a proper, responsible manner, thereby benefiting the nation, industry, the travelling public and employees? The Government put profits before people. One of the saddest features of all is the short-sightedness of a Government who are not prepared to invest in long-term safety. They will long stand condemned for that fact alone.

Sir Anthony Grant: In the short time available I should like to deal with air and road travel. I declare an interest as president of the Guild of Experienced Motorists and as an adviser to the Guild of Business Travel Agents, which is responsible for four out of five business flights out of the United Kingdom.
A top priority for both means of travel is safety. The difference between the two methods of travel is stark. There is almost hysterical excitement and anxiety when a jumbo jet has a near miss—there is wide coverage in the press and great terror—but the equivalent of a jumbo jet crashing, with total loss of life, takes place every month of every year on our roads and receives nothing like the same publicity. There are 35 road casualties every hour. There have been 100 road casualties in the time that we have been debating this matter. It is no consolation to people who have suffered the misery and horror of a road accident to be told that the statistics are better than those for France or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) said, because there are so many cars on the road, the proportion of accidents is smaller.
It is essential to concentrate on road safety, despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough said, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his work and his attention to this matter. He has emphasised the number of deaths and misery caused by drunken driving. He always states that one in five road accidents are caused by drink, but we should not forget that four out of five are not caused by drink. So what are they caused by? In that respect I welcome the Government's support for the North report, which reviewed road traffic law.
It is right to emphasise the need for more and better roads. As my hon. Friend always says, one is safer on a motorway than on the small urban roads. I know that that is true of my constituency, where ghastly accidents occur, not on the motorways, but on the smaller roads in rural areas. The call for roads to be built is interesting. My hon. Friend the Secretary of State accused the Opposition of being big spenders, of wanting to spend big money and to subsidise, but what did they do when they were in office? They halved the road programme. Therefore, we can dismiss their view. Indeed, the whole of the motion is party political claptrap. The subject deserves much more serious debate.
There are many items in the North report that are important. First, the report is right to emphasise the distinction between major and minor road offences, which at present is somewhat blurred. The offence of recklessness is always difficult to prove in court. The muddles and the wheeler deals, in which I used to be involved when I was involved in the law, were in many ways bringing the law into disrepute. The police would throw in two charges, dangerous and careless driving, and a deal would be struck: "All right, I will plead guilty to careless driving if the dangerous driving charge is withdrawn." I am glad that the North report recommends changes that will differentiate between those two offences, because a diminution of the respect shown for the police has been encouraged by our traffic laws.
I hope that in future, the police will be able to make greater use of warnings and explanations to motorists of what has gone wrong. That would be good public relations and would be helpful to the motorist. I understand that the

police can have videos in their cars, and it would be valuable if an offender could be shown on the video what he did wrong, in the hope that he would not do it again.
I am glad that there is to be greater use of technological advances, which I know my hon. Friend is studying. In Japan, heavy goods vehicles have lights that illuminate when they are travelling too fast, and that makes them easily identifiable. The greatest curse of our motorways is the wretched practice of driving too close to the vehicle in front for the conditions on the road. I am advised that it is possible to have a technological gadget—for example a light—that will show clearly that one is driving too close behind the other vehicle for the speed at which one is travelling. The Opposition have asked who will pay for that. The answer is simple. If we are sensible we will ensure, as we did with seat belts, that such gadgets are fitted to vehicles before they are put on the road. That is what must happen if we are to deal with the mayhem.
The magistrates bench is often feeble about disqualification for very bad driving, and I should like greater use to be made of the power to order the forfeiture of the vehicle. I know that it is said that most people do not drive their own vehicles, but I do not believe that that matters. There are many companies which are irresponsible about who they give a car to. They do not check whether the person to whom they are giving the keys is a good driver or sensible. It would be a salutary experience for companies if their vehicles were forfeited and they had to pay a substantial sum to get them back. They might then ensure that their drivers drove more carefully. It is, after all, commercial travellers belting about in other people's cars who are a major cause of mayhem on the roads.
I hope that appropriate measures will be applied strictly to heavy goods vehicles and coaches.

Mr. Terry Dicks: Especially coaches.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Particularly when they are in the outside lane.

Sir Anthony Grant: I entirely agree with my hon. Friends. There are excellent drivers of HGVs and coaches, but, as those vehicles are much more dangerous than anything else, the drivers of them must maintain higher standards.
I entirely support what my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) said about the Civil Aviation Authority. Its chairman, Mr. Christopher Tugendhat, is an old friend and a former colleague of ours. He is a man of great integrity and ability. It is wrong to blame him for what has happened with our air traffic control. There is no doubt that we were all caught out badly in our estimate of the increase in the amount of air travel. It is rather like the M25. It is an excellent concept, but the number of users has far outstripped the number anticipated when the wretched thing was built. For air traffic, we are stuck with a problem that will be with us for a long time.
The CAA is to spend £250 million during the next five years. My view, which I am told is shared by some airlines, is that that is inadequate. I also believe that resolution of the problem, which is predicted for 1995, is likely to slip to 1997. There will be more temporary measures, such as moving charters to Heathrow. Despite what my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) said, I think it is unavoidable that some extra night flights will be used. That is regrettable.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley about the use of military airspace. I am told that the regulations that affect military airspace were laid down a long time ago, and in different circumstances. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consult our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who may be able to raise the subject in NATO circles, to see whether some military airspace can be released. That would make a big difference.

Mr. Mans: Will my hon. Friend explain how the release of military airspace will solve congestion on civilian airways?

Sir Anthony Grant: The point was put to me powerfully at a meeting that I had with British Airways air traffic people. They think that if military airspace in Europe were reduced, much more would be available for civilian aeroplanes. Their view is shared by some of their European counterparts.
We are all sorry for the holidaymakers, because it is wretched for them to have their holidays ruined. However, we must remember the other important travellers who have to travel by air all year round, not just at holiday times. I am referring to the business traveller, the person who is concerned with trade for Britain and about our exports as a trading nation. He does not travel for pleasure. He has to travel day in, day out, in all circumstances to trade for Britain. Such travellers should not be inconvenienced or suffer in any way because of the failure to arrange our affairs in such a manner that scheduled flights can take priority over charters. I ask my right hon. Friends to have careful regard to maintaining the scheduled services at all costs, because they are important for the business traveller and the British economy.
The Department of Transport is often regarded as a Cinderella, but I believe that it does a first-class job. It is in the front line when there are difficulties and what it does touches on the activities of all our citizens. It has done a first-class job and I wish it well. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) who is to reply to the debate, will have close dealings with the Department of the Environment and that there will not be any conflict with the new Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley).

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I should like to join the assembled welcome for the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) and to add my commiserations to the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), who I shall miss because of the way in which he took part in the debates that we shared, with me doing the talking and him doing the listening. He did that well for the most part.
If I could give some advice to the hon. Member for Southgate, it would be to read carefully the Governments amendment to our motion and then ignore every single word in it because it is absolute nonsense, as has been borne out by speeches of hon. Members of all parties.
If things are so good, why are they so bad? Why, for example, has the road system in the City of London almost

collapsed, so that the London ambulance service has now had to reduce from 95 per cent. to as low as 90 per cent. the number of calls that it expects to make within 14 minutes? That is a terrible indictment of the congestion on London's roads and of the Government's total inability to get to grips with the situation.
I remind the House that it is not that long ago that London Regional Transport was striving to attract traffic off the roads—and succeeding—that the number of accidents on London's roads fell by 3,000 per year, and that the number of cars on London's roads also decreased. That was because at that time London Regional Transport was receiving that terrible thing, a subsidy from the Greater London council and from the Treasury. Because of that subsidy, it could offer the unusual combination of a decent fare structure and passengers attracted back to public transport.
If everything is so good, why did the Audit Commission state in its recent report that since 1980 roads throughout the country have been deteriorating and that their condition is now worse than in 1977? If things are so good under this Government, why are the travelling public throughout the country totally fed up with the motorways being coned off and with being unable to travel from one part of the country to another, and why have those who used to travel on public transport deserted it? Following the great emphasis on deregulation, fewer people use public transport after deregulation than used it before.
The most important item in the Opposition motion is the part that concentrates on safety and the most damning indictment of this Government's record is their record on safety. Although this has been a wide-ranging debate, I believe that it is important to consider safety.
London Regional Transport enjoyed phenomenal success under the Greater London council when, partly in co-operation with the Labour Government and even with the Conservative Government in their early years, low fares made a real change to the fortunes of transport in London. The Government have now withdrawn the subsidy to LRT, and the 1988–89 LRT business plan admits that the London Underground and the London transport system are seriously overloaded.
In April of this year, LRT also announced that new investment, far from coming from the public to satisfy the needs of the public through taxation and other mechanisms, would lead inevitably and inexorably towards higher fares. The inevitable result will be fewer passengers travelling on the transport system—except for those forced off by the congestion on our roads.
Although the Government boast in their amendment to the motion of
the increased investment in transport",
there are now fewer railway cars on LRT railways than there were in 1979. There is less seating capacity on the Underground than there was in 1979. Basically, the public are being given a shabby deal as a result of lack of Government investment.
The Secretary of State always makes great play of the "caring Government" and of what they have done to improve safety. However, the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors have neglected safety on London Underground since the day they took it over from the GLC.
One of the first tasks of the new Minister for Public Transport—poor sucker—was to answer a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). My hon. Friend asked
on what date his Department received London fire brigade inspection reports on the London Underground deep underground stations in 1987, and in each of the preceding five years.
The answer that came back said:
None were received in 1987."—
or in 1986, 1985 or 1984—
The last report received from the London fire brigade … was dated 10 May 1983".
Surely the Department of Transport and the Secretary of State, or his predecessors, must have realised, when those reports from the fire brigade did not come through, that something had gone wrong. Surely, having nationalised London Underground, the Government appreciated that they had responsibility for safety. Once that transport system had been nationalised, the Government took away any adequate safety regime. The sure and inexorable result has been that the management, pressed to deliver cost savings and profit achievements, has ended up with poor safety conditions. That has led directly to the King's Cross fire and that is a charge that the Government will not be allowed to evade.
There have been previous fires on London Underground, at Oxford Circus and at Green Park. The reports on the inquiries into those fires were available, yet, despite its importance, no steps were taken to ensure the safety of the travelling public in London. That should have been the Government's prime concern and that is a charge that I am levelling against the Government. It is the greatest hypocrisy for the Government to argue that safety is at the forefront of their decision-making.
The most important concern relates to the safety of the ferries that ply between our coastal ports and France— that is a growing sore. The charge that such ferries are unacceptably vulnerable to capsize has been made by people with professional competence and of the highest international repute. That warning has come from the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, from those who suffered a bereavement as a result of the sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise, and from the Herald Families Association. On each occasion, the Government's response has been that they have taken all kinds of measures to introduce regulations for ferries. They have at no time addressed the basic problem—the ability of such ferries to capsize.
During the passage of the Merchant Shipping Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and I pointed out the problems of fatigue. In every comparable industry, whether the air service or road haulage industry, there are specific limits on the hours of work that can be undertaken by or allowed for any operative. We pointed out that navigation at sea was an exception in that respect and that the Government had already committed themselves to bringing in legislation on fatigue.
We were told by the then Minister of State, and again on Report, that the Government intended to do nothing about bringing in maximum permitted hours of work for the merchant marine. We did not twig why—that it was a prelude to the introduction of new working conditions by P and O and that if the Government had brought in those acceptable hours of work they would have ruled out the

introduction of the new blue book regime which was brought in by P and O and which has done so much damage to the ferry industry——

Mr. David Shaw: The final terms were red book, not blue book, terms.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman stood before the House some months ago and described how P and O had listened to people like him and had brought in the red book to amend the blue book—but it has ratted on that agreement and brought in the blue book. There are people on its ferries who operate under blue book conditions.
I want to quote some interesting comments made by personnel of P and O, the kind-hearted company whose only aim is to make an honest buck and to ensure the safety of it passengers. The company was described by Lord Justice Sheen thus:
From top to bottom the body corporate was infected with the disease of sloppiness.
So much has changed that the Dover personnel manager of P and O European Ferries, a Mr. Chaston, was observed by members of NUMAST in negotiation with him to say:
P and O cannot be seen as putting forward any reduction in manning. Any such changes must come from the union as the company cannot afford to be held responsible for accidents.
He was not saying that the company did not want reductions in manning; he was happy to have them. But he was saying P and O would not accept responsibility for any more accidents caused by what he knew—so much is implicit in his comments—were unsafe manning levels. That is what P and O is up to.
This is the same P and O which, as we have already heard this evening in the case of the vessel European Clearway, allowed operating conditions that defy categorisation as acceptable. P and O has denied none of these charges yet. The Secretary of State told us that he was prepared to prosecute in the event of unacceptable conditions at sea, but that the Herald of Free Enterprise is unfortunately out of his hands. Will he give a guarantee that, if the charges about the European Clearway made by motorman John Ball are proven, rather than allowing him to pursue a private prosecution, he will take all possible steps to ensure that Jeffrey Sterling and his company are brought before the courts to answer for the unacceptable safety standards on their vessels?
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the position of the European Trader? I have already raised this matter with him. On the night when there was a fire on board the European Trader, an exchange took place between the vessel and the coastguard, who said:
Please listen to me on Channel 80 and Channel 16.
The vessel's radio operator replied:
We do not have enough men to monitor on both channels.
The Secretary of State is not an able seaman—no more am I—but we both know that it is vital in such an emergency that monitoring should take place on both channels. On that occasion it did not, because there were not enough men on board. The right hon. Gentleman's departmental inspectors allowed that to happen. I can provide—I have provided—the Secretary of State with the names of witnesses; will he guarantee that if the charge is proven he will prosecute P and O for that?
Will the Secretary of State, through the Under-Secretary, tell us about the charge that surfaced this


morning about the European Trader? On the night when the fire was raging and the crew went in to put it out, they were issued with gear to prevent them from being burned, and with breathing masks. They found that the oxygen cylinders for the breathing masks were empty, so they had to depart and find substitutes before going back to fight the blaze. Any observer would recognise that that delay might have caused a major tragedy which fortunately—no thanks to P and O or the Government—did not take place. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that charges will be laid against P and O if that incident is proven? I invite the Under-Secretary of State to respond to that, because clearly the Secretary of State does not intend to move.
The Government often claim that they are the victims of the success of their policies. That success is reflected in airports that have people lying all over the place and in traffic queued up for miles on our motorways and in the streets of London. The real victims of the Government's success are those who died on the Herald of Free Enterprise and at King's Cross. The Opposition will not allow the Government, who claim that they care for safety standards, to escape responsibility for those victims.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): Every day people lose husbands, wives, parents, children and friends they have loved, whose loss reduces every perspective to dullness, misery and pain. In many cases they carry the pain around with them for the rest of their lives. At moments like this, one realises that under the surface of polite society there is a great well of sadness and bereavement, an aspect of the human condition which is as inescapable as it is seldom remarked, yet looming larger in many people's lives than any of the things they pretend to think important. The only excuse for allowing my own howl of anguish to be heard is to give those yet unbereaved a glimpse into the hellish blackness lying under the surface of their lives before they sensibly turn away and think of something else.
These words are Auberon Waugh's from the Spectator of 15 February 1986.
The House will acknowledge that this is an important debate with many aspects. It is regrettable that it draws about as much press attention as our most boring debates. The House knows that for a debate about capital punishment, which might affect the lives of about six or 60 people a year, the Press and Strangers' Galleries would have been full and there would have been newspaper attention throughout the debate. I am not criticising the press; and I shall later deal with what it has achieved.
While not in any way obscuring some of the terrible tragedies that have occurred, I can tell the House that in every category of transport the accident rate for the last available year is lower than it was in 1979. Of course, it should be. We should be able to get rid of avoidable crashes and to reduce the risk of disaster—[Interruption.] When disasters occur we should learn the lessons. One of the important things to recognise is that if we spent more time listening rather than speaking, we could work together to reduce the number of crashes.
Some hon. Members spoke about the King's Cross fire. I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I were two of the few Members of Parliament who were there. I pay tribute to those who at that disaster and

in other disasters clear up the consequences of human error. On the roads, 95 per cent. of deaths and injuries are caused in part or in full by human error.
While we wait for the report of the Fennell inquiry, let us recognise that, because of the increased number of passengers who used the London Underground this year, between 25 and 30 lives have been saved. Seventy per cent. more people now use London Underground than in 1982, when it came away from the GLC. Without that increase in passengers, we would have expected at least 250 serious casualties and 1,000 slight casualties extra on the roads. If the underground passenger miles had been travelled in cars, on motor cycles and pedal cycles the saving would not have been so great.
Those who have managed to promote London Regional Transport so that it is more attractive to passengers have saved lives. By holding fares roughly steady, London Regional Transport has got so many extra passengers that it can proceed to an investment programme of £1 million a day. Capital investment in London Regional Transport is over three times the rate of investment on national roads in London. That should be welcomed rather than criticised by the Opposition if they believe their own rhetoric. People should have a choice about how they move around. They should make their own decisions rather than have them made by the Government or by the Opposition.
I also wish to mention one of the more vulnerable groups—motor cyclists. The House will be aware that over 40 per cent. of injuries to motor cyclists occur to those who are very young. In 1982, which is a useful comparative year —let us not bring party politics into the matter by taking 1979—a motor cyclist between the ages of 16 and 19 was 20 times more likely to be involved in a crash or collision for every mile travelled than a motor cyclist aged 25 or over. That ratio of 20:1 is horrifying, and the House rightly acted in a number of ways.
I am also glad that many people in motor cycling, including the British Motorcyclists Federation and many retailers, have promoted training. The ratio of danger for a young motor cyclist compared with that of a 25-year-old or older motor cyclist has fallen to 13:1. That is a significant improvement, especially when we reckon that between 600 and 700 motor cyclists die each year.
We intend to continue working with people in the motor cycling industry. When they have their rally on Saturday or Sunday, I hope that they will recognise the value of their approval of comprehensive training for young motor cyclists. At present, only 30 per cent. of motor cyclists receive any training before they take to the road.

Mr. David Marshall: If voluntary training has achieved such a substantial reduction in the number of accidents, why not make it compulsory and achieve an even greater reduction?

Mr. Bottomley: We will. We announced our intention to do so, with the approval of the motor cycling world, a few months ago. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport, who, in a broad speech, covered a number of areas to which the House will want to return.
This has been one of our better debates. We were reminded that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who said that she could not move


around the country, managed to move from Exeter to Crewe while a Tory Government were in power. I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) for reminding us of that and for pointing out that, when the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said that he was a babe in arms in 1953, his mother must have been quite some person because he was aged 10 at the time, having been born in 1943.

Mr. Tony Banks: I was a child who loved my mother.

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) told us how the urban environment has worsened. I am not sure that she is right. As I go round the country, meeting the 107 highway authorities in England —my road responsibilities stop at the border—I find that the urban environment is improving and that there are more through roads for through traffic. The bypass programme carried forward by the Government allows more people to move around their local roads and allows traffic-calming measures to be introduced. It is interesting to note that, although the hon. Lady's party supports bypasses, there are many areas where local supporters of her party spend their time complaining about road schemes. We recognise the difficulty. We had the same problem with the Channel tunnel when the Liberal spokesman supported the Channel tunnel and the Liberals in Folkestone were spending all their time saying that they opposed it.
The points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) are well known to me. I hope to send him a letter in response to those that he has sent me. Perhaps he can then distribute copies of the letter to his constituents who are keenly interested in the road that we cannot call the Worthing bypass, but must call the Worthing relief road. It is controversial. That is why I delayed putting forward what appeared to be the most realistic view of where the road could go. I recognise that this is a disappointment. As one of my ex-constituents now lives on the proposed route for the new road, I realise how strongly my right hon. Friend's other constituents feel about it. My right hon. Friend also made some points about air travel. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has dealt with those very effectively.

Mr. Michael Shersby: My hon. Friend quoted a figure for deaths of motor cyclists of 600. Did he mean in a year?

Mr. Bottomley: Yes.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) made a discursive speech. He talked about travel within the law. It is important to realise how schizophrenic we are about road casualties. On Friday I was looking at red-light jumping with a television crew. That is one of the habits that is getting worse—[Interruption.] Forty per cent. of the traffic—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) referred to being a Member sponsored by the TGWU; I stand here as a Member not sponsored by the TGWU—[Interruption.] Three years ago on "Any Questions" the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said that he would give up insulting for the new year.

Mr. John Prescott: I did not.

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman is now denying it, but it is true. If he cannot be consistent from one year to the next, I would not vote for him as Deputy Leader.
Going across traffic lights which the car should not do —[Interruption.]—red-light jumping, as I described it— was watched by a television camera. The producer asked how to obscure the registration plates of those cars that broke the law. We would not try to obscure the faces of people filmed breaking out of a building society with all the money. No other form of crime kills so many people as driving offences. Driving too close to another vehicle, drinking and driving and many other things that people do are somehow looked on—or used to be—as a game, in which one should have a chance to avoid detection. Would we not tell a good friend not to drink and drive?
It is important to recognise what happens when people drink and drive—one of the biggest single killers on the road. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir Anthony Grant), the president of the Guild of Experienced Motorists, was speaking for many when he reminded us that two thirds of deaths on the road come from sober road users. The one third caused by motorists and road users who have been drinking have the biggest single cause.
It has been reported in no more than one newspaper that the crime of driving over the legal limit, when people are two, five or 20 times more likely to be involved in a crash or collision, appears to have been halved in the last year and a half. The rate of the crime that has led to 1,000 people a year dying—that is probably an underestimate —has been halved. That is a matter of which the House should be aware and we should recognise how it has happened.
That has not happened as a result of a change in law, although the Government do not rule out change of law in future. It has not happened as a result of a change in sentencing. As has been said, there has not been a change in sentencing, and some people regret that. I can offer no view because I do not comment on the courts' decisions. It has not happened as a result of a change in the amount of money that has been spent. It has changed because the media have treated drinking and driving as news and current affairs. That has helped. It has come about because the brewers have promoted non-alcoholic drinks. Now, 95 per cent. of pubs and clubs have non-alcoholic or low-alcohol beer available. Drink-driving has been 90 per cent. a pub problem, 90 per cent. a beer problem.
It is also worth recognising that the only change that would come with full discretionary testing would be that the police would be able to test people whom they believed had not been drinking. We look forward to receiving a detailed submission from the police on what change they would like in addition to a restatement of the existing law.
I make a plea to people inside and outside the House. Instead of debating random breath testing, they should make it plain that to cut transport casualties people should not drink and drive, offer alcohol to drivers or accept lifts from drinking drivers.
If we reduce those figures as fast as we have reduced those for crashes and risks in the air, on the underground and on the railways, we shall be able to move around Britain more safely. The figures for air misses are going down and the situation on the railways and the roads is improving. We have much of which to be proud. I ask the House to reject the Opposition's motion and to support the Government's amendment.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 262.

Division No. 446]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Allen, Graham
George, Bruce


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Armstrong, Hilary
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Ashdown, Paddy
Golding, Mrs Llin


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Gould, Bryan


Ashton, Joe
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Grocott, Bruce


Barron, Kevin
Harman, Ms Harriet


Battle, John
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Beckett, Margaret
Haynes, Frank


Beggs, Roy
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Heffer, Eric S.


Bermingham, Gerald
Henderson, Doug


Bidwell, Sydney
Hinchliffe, David


Blair, Tony
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Boateng, Paul
Holland, Stuart


Boyes, Roland
Home Robertson, John


Bradley, Keith
Hood, Jimmy


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hoyle, Doug


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Buckley, George J.
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Illsley, Eric


Canavan, Dennis
Ingram, Adam


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
John, Brynmor


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Clay, Bob
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Clelland, David
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cohen, Harry
Kennedy, Charles


Coleman, Donald
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Kirkwood, Archy


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lambie, David


Cousins, Jim
Lamond, James


Crowther, Stan
Leadbitter, Ted


Cryer, Bob
Leighton, Ron


Cummings, John
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lewis, Terry


Cunningham, Dr John
Litherland, Robert


Darling, Alistair
Livsey, Richard


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dewar, Donald
Loyden, Eddie


Dixon, Don
McAllion, John


Dobson, Frank
McAvoy, Thomas


Doran, Frank
Macdonald, Calum A.


Duffy, A. E. P.
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
McKelvey, William


Eadie, Alexander
McLeish, Henry


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McNamara, Kevin


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
McTaggart, Bob


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
McWilliam, John


Fatchett, Derek
Madden, Max


Faulds, Andrew
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Fearn, Ronald
Marek, Dr John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Fisher, Mark
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Flannery, Martin
Martlew, Eric


Flynn, Paul
Meacher, Michael


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Meale, Alan


Foster, Derek
Michael, Alun


Foulkes, George
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fraser, John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Galbraith, Sam
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Galloway, George
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Moonie, Dr Lewis





Morgan, Rhodri
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Morley, Elliott
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Snape, Peter


Mowlam, Marjorie
Soley, Clive


Mullin, Chris
Spearing, Nigel


Murphy, Paul
Steinberg, Gerry


Nellist, Dave
Strang, Gavin


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Straw, Jack


O'Brien, William
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Parry, Robert
Vaz, Keith


Patchett, Terry
Wall, Pat


Pendry, Tom
Wallace, James


Pike, Peter L.
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Prescott, John
Wareing, Robert N.


Quin, Ms Joyce
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Radice, Giles
Wigley, Dafydd


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Richardson, Jo
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Robinson, Geoffrey
Wilson, Brian


Rogers, Allan
Winnick, David


Rooker, Jeff
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Worthington, Tony


Rowlands, Ted
Wray, Jimmy


Ruddock, Joan
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sedgemore, Brian



Sheerman, Barry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Ken Eastham and Mr. Ray Powell.


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)





NOES


Amess, David
Emery, Sir Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fallon, Michael


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Farr, Sir John


Aspinwall, Jack
Favell, Tony


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Fishburn, Dudley


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Forman, Nigel


Bevan, David Gilroy
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Forth, Eric


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bottomley, Peter
Franks, Cecil


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Freeman, Roger


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
French, Douglas


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Fry, Peter


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gardiner, George


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Buck, Sir Antony
Gill, Christopher


Burt, Alistair
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Butterfill, John
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Goodlad, Alastair


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Chapman, Sydney
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Chope, Christopher
Gorst, John


Churchill, Mr
Gow, Ian


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Colvin, Michael
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Gregory, Conal


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Cope, Rt Hon John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Cormack, Patrick
Ground, Patrick


Couchman, James
Grylls, Michael


Cran, James
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Critchley, Julian
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hampson, Dr Keith


Curry, David
Hanley, Jeremy


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Hannam, John


Day, Stephen
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Devlin, Tim
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Harris, David


Dicks, Terry
Haselhurst, Alan


Dorrell, Stephen
Hawkins, Christopher


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hayes, Jerry


Dover, Den
Hayward, Robert


Durant, Tony
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Dykes, Hugh
Heddle, John






Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Hill, James
Major, Rt Hon John


Hind, Kenneth
Malins, Humfrey


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Mans, Keith


Holt, Richard
Maples, John


Hordern, Sir Peter
Marland, Paul


Howard, Michael
Marlow, Tony


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Maude, Hon Francis


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hunter, Andrew
Miller, Sir Hal


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Mills, Iain


Irvine, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman


Jack, Michael
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Jackson, Robert
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Janman, Tim
Moate, Roger


Jessel, Toby
Monro, Sir Hector


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Moore, Rt Hon John


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Morrison, Sir Charles


Key, Robert
Moss, Malcolm


Kilfedder, James
Moynihan, Hon Colin


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Neale, Gerrard


Kirkhope, Timothy
Neubert, Michael


Knapman, Roger
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Knowles, Michael
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Knox, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Page, Richard


Lang, Ian
Paice, James


Latham, Michael
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Lawrence, Ivan
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Pawsey, James


Lee, John (Pendle)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Porter, David (Waveney)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Portillo, Michael


Lilley, Peter
Powell, William (Corby)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Price, Sir David


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Lord, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Redwood, John


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Riddick, Graham


McCrindle, Robert
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Maclean, David
Rost, Peter





Ryder, Richard
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Sackville, Hon Tom
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Thorne, Neil


Sayeed, Jonathan
Thornton, Malcolm


Scott, Nicholas
Thurnham, Peter


Shaw, David (Dover)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Tredinnick, David


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Trippier, David


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Viggers, Peter


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shersby, Michael
Walden, George


Sims, Roger
Waller, Gary


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Ward, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Watts, John


Speller, Tony
Wells, Bowen


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Whitney, Ray


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Widdecombe, Ann


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wiggin, Jerry


Stern, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Stevens, Lewis
Wilshire, David


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Winterton, Nicholas


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wolfson, Mark


Sumberg, David
Wood, Timothy


Summerson, Hugo
Woodcock, Mike


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Taylor, John M (Solihull)



Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.


Temple-Morris, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House congratulates the Government on its success in developing and implementing policies to provide the public and industry with an efficient transport system, giving both value for money and an improved quality of servicc; welcomes the increased investment in transport infrastructure which is accompanying a reduction in the burden on the taxpayer; applaudes the increasing involvement of the private sector in transport projects; and reaffirms the Government's overriding commitment to the safety of travellers,".

Orders of the Day — Education Reform Bill

Lords amendment in lieu of a Lords amendment disagreed to by the Commons considered.

Mr. Speaker: I draw attention to a misprint in the Lords amendment. In the bold cross-heading, the reference should be to clause 117, not to clause 115. I have selected the amendment to the Lords amendment in lieu, in the names of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and others.

Clause 117

THE FUNDING COUNCILS: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Lords amendment: In page 115, line 34, at end insert—
(3A) Before exercising their discretion under section 115(6) or (as the case may be) section 116(7)(a) of this Act with respect to the terms and conditions to be imposed in relation to any grants each of the Funding Councils shall consult such of the following bodies as it appears to the Council to be appropriate to consult in the circumstances, that is to say—

(a) such bodies representing the interests of relevant institutions as appear to the Council to be concerned; and
(b) the governing body of any particular relevant institution which appears to the Council to be concerned.
(3B) References in subsection (3A) above to relevant institutions are references—

(a) in relation to consultations required to be carried out by the Universities Funding Council, to universities; and
(b) in relation to consultations required to be carried out by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, to institutions within the PCFC funding sector."

Read a Second time.

Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment in lieu, at end of subsection (3A) insert—
'(c) such organisations representing staff as appear to the Council to be concerned, and
(d) in relation to consultations to be carricd out by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, such local authorities or their associations, as appear to the Council to be concerned.'.
We all thought that we had had our last debate on the Education Reform Bill last Tuesday, but some of us at least are happy to be back again.
I was very sorry—as, I am sure, many other hon. Members were—to learn yesterday evening of the departure of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) from the post of Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science. I should like to place on record our tribute to his unfailing courtesy and good humour throughout the passage of the Bill.
I offer the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues my commiserations for having had wished on them—without consultation or agreement, I understand —the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher). I only hope that his strike record in offering advice to his senior Ministers is slightly better in future than it was at the Department of Trade and Industry. I

have a cutting from The Times in which, only a few months ago, the hon. Gentleman was reported as having promised:
Extra cash may be made available for the HOTOL space plane project.
One can be wrong sometimes. In the case of the hon. Gentleman, one can be wrong most of the time. He wrote in The Times on one occasion:
I'm no deadbeat, and you can quote me.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford. I should like to echo his words, because my hon. Friend has made a signal contribution to the work of the Department and to the formation of the Bill and its passage through the House.
The hon. Gentleman's comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West are absurd. I am pleased to welcome my hon. Friend aboard. He worked for me some years ago at the Department of Trade and Industry on improving technological education. If one thinks of the rather lacklustre and humdrum performance of the Opposition team during the passage of the Education Reform Bill, it seems that it is not only the Government Benches "that need a reshuffle" but the Opposition Benches as well.

Mr. Straw: That was poor, even by the standards of the Secretary of State. I was going on to say that part of the problem of the hon. Member for Dartford was that he mocked the excessive bureaucracy in the Secretary of State's Bill. He mocked the national curriculum and called it a three-wheeled bicycle and a fairy tricycle, and he paid the price for that. His departure serves to remind the House of something which is central to the issues raised by the amendment—the transient nature of Ministers.
Throughout the proceedings on the Bill, when we have suggested the powers of the Bill could be misused, the Secretary of State has stood up and said, "Trust us." Some of us may be willing to take the Secretary of State, or even the Under-Secretary of State, at his word, but the problem that we all face is that Ministers are transient.
That point was made by Lord Swann in the other place, when he explained the importance of amendments that have now been accepted in the other place requiring consultation. He said that the Secretary of State
is to be congratulated on those promises; they have gone down very well. But—and we believe it is a serious 'but'— Secretaries of State do not last forever; far from it. Their words are not binding on their successors. Therefore, while higher education can feel more confident about the immediate future, there can be no certainty whatever about what will happen as the years go by. Ministers, Governments and financial crises will no doubt come and go. Bureaucracy has an alarming tendency of escalating without anyone realising what is going on except its victims."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 July 1988; Vol. 500, c. 36.]

Mr. James Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman note that the Education Reform Bill has gone through, after nine months or so, virtually unamended? Does he put that down either to the inspiring quality of the legislation or his uninspiring leadership of the Opposition?

Mr. Straw: In so far as the legislation is unamended, I put that down to the bone-headedness of Conservative Members, and I express my commiseration to the hon.


Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) for the fact that he was not offered preferment in the reshuffle yesterday.

Mr. Pawsey: At least I do not wear white jackets.

Mr. Straw: At least mine is clean, unlike that of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: While we are on the subject of amendments, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recall that, far from the Bill being unamended, as the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) suggested, I believe that 500 amendments were tabled by the Government alone.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. There were 569 amendments made in the House of Lords, and, as we all recall, hundreds were made in the House of Commons because, as I have explained, the Secretary of State fails to think things through or to think ahead. There are a whole series of time bombs within the Bill. Again, we commiserate with the Secretary of State that he was not offered a chance to escape in the reshuffle.
The importance of the amendment is to tie down the Secretary of State and the funding councils to ensure that there is proper consultation. Paragraphs (a) and (b) require that the consultation should take place with
such bodies representing the interests of relevant institutions as appear to the Council to be concerned; and … the governing body of any particular relevant institutions which appear to the Council to be concerned.
Obviously, that can include the council and the senate of the university or the governing body of the polytechnic and their representative national bodies, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics.
The amendment is unexceptionally worded, so I hope that the Under-Secretary will accept it. It seeks to add a requirement that the trade unions or other staff organisations be consulted. I make it clear to the House and to the Under-Secretary that that is at the discretion of the council. It is to ensure that there is a clear limit, obviously to the extent of consultation as is relevant, and, in relation to consultations carried out by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, to such local authorities or their associations as appear to the council to be concerned.
The consultations take place in circumstances in which terms and conditions are imposed upon the award of grant by the relevant funding councils. Such terms and conditions have not before been imposed within a statutory framework. Local authorities do and will continue to have an interest in what polytechnics are doing, even though polytechnics may no longer be part of their estate. There is a clear relationship between the courses that will be offered in many local authority colleges, the way in which local authorities have been planning provision at further and higher education level, and what polytechnics are doing. Therefore, it is important that there should be laid down a requirement for consultation with local authorities and their associations, but only in respect of polytechnics.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): This debate represents what will be the last work in the parliamentary debate about the Education Reform Bill. It is entirely in keeping with the way in which they have conducted themselves throughout the debates that Opposition

Members should have made their last word the whimsical persiflage of personalities of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). I do not bear the hon. Gentleman any ill will. We are all grateful to him for the way in which he and his colleagues have let us off so lightly. It is entirely in keeping with the whole tenor of the Opposition's policy, or lack of it, that the hon. Gentleman's words should have fallen so far below the level of the issue.
The issue is whether the new higher education funding councils, in consulting as they think appropriate, should be obliged to consider consultation not only with institutions in their respective sectors and their representative bodies but with trade unions and, in the case of the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, local education authorities.
I have two observations to make about the proposals. First, as a matter of course, there will be widespread consultation between funding councils and all relevant bodies. Indeed, one could say that consultation is inscribed by definition in the idea of contract funding, which is necessarily reciprocal in character. To meet the concerns that were expressed in another place, the Government have amended the Bill to give explicit recognition to the inevitable necessity of consultation. To do so, we must define the bodies with which consultation must necessarily be considered, but to include some bodies by mentioning them in the Bill does not mean the exclusion of others by failing to mention them.
Therefore, the Opposition's amendments are unnecessary, and are based on a logical fallacy. Moreover, it could be said that they are not only unnecessary but damaging to the interests that Opposition Members have at heart. The longer the list of bodies that the list specifies must be considered, the greater is any presumption that bodies that are not mentioned should not be consulted.

Mr. Straw: The Under-Secretary of State must know that that argument simply cannot wash in circumstances in which he and the Secretary of State have already agreed to two categories of bodies. His observation is nonsense. Does he agree with the purpose of the amendment, which is to ensure that it is clear that the two bodies should be under an obligation to consult, among others, trade union staff associations and, in the case of the PCFC, such local authorities or their associations as appear to the relevant councils to be concerned?

Mr. Jackson: No, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's proposition, and I am about to explain why. The proposition and the amendment are typically ill-conceived and backward-looking. Hon. Members should note how ill-conceived is the idea of an obligation on funding councils to consider consulting unions. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have considered, even for a moment, the implications for the autonomy and self-direction of our higher education institutions if funding councils consider themselves obliged to intervene directly in their internal affairs and to establish direct contacts, bypassing the constitutional structure of the institutions, with selected interests inside that institution. That is the problem raised by the first branch of the Opposition amendment. It is a thoroughly ill-considered proposal. The only excuse for it is that we know from the Opposition's form throughout the debates on the Bill that it was probably hardly considered at all.
10.30 pm
Then there is the backward-looking flavour of the Opposition proposal to oblige the PCFC to consider consultations with the local authorities and their associations. This shows that Opposition Members have not come to terms with the reality of what is happening in the polytechnics and colleges. These institutions have outgrown the tutelage of the local education authorities.
We owe a debt of gratitude to the local authorities for what they have done to bring the polytechnics and colleges to maturity, but they have grown up now, and the Opposition's emphasis on local authority interest in this matter is thoroughly out of date.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Does the Minister acknowledge that the local education authorities will continue to have an important role to play in adult education, that the polytechnics will be a crucial part of that, and that consultation, if only at that level, will be essential to achieve the flexible arrangements that we discussed at length in Committee?

Mr. Jackson: There is no need to make extra provision for that, because consultation is specified in the legislation at various points in the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Lady.

Mr. Harry Greenway: In the past, local authorities have had to sanction even the smallest appointments—for example, for colleges of higher education. We need a clean break from that system, which tied the colleges absurdly closely to the local authorities. The Bill will provide that change, and that is to be welcomed.

Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend describes accurately the sort of world Opposition Members hanker after. It is the world they wish to restore. It is the world from which we are breaking by this Bill.
As this is almost the Government's last word in the parliamentary debates on the measure, I will make a few comments which try to aspire to the level which is appropriate to this historic piece of legislation.

Mr. Pawsey: Would my hon. Friend agree that the Bill can truly be called great and that it will take its place——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Waiker): Order. We are debating a narrow amendment about consultation. Let us stick to that.

Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is right, in that the philosophy of this measure has throughout been to release new energies and a new dynamism in our public education by devolving power and by calling in interests to which not enough weight has been attached in the past.
Whether in our schools or in our institutions of higher education, the philosophy is the same—to strengthen choice and competition and enhance institutional self-determination on the basis of wider accountability. History will recognise, as have both Houses, the seriousness and significance of these commitments on the part of the Government and embodied in the Bill.

Mr. George Walden: My hon. Friend the Minister has left me little to say, but there is something to add—in a way to contradict him—because the tone of the

hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was appropriate to the subject, so I would not upbraid him as my hon. Friend did. I detected a tone of levity in the hon. Gentleman's speech which spilled over into the amendment. It is not entirely serious of him to introduce such an amendment now.
It is inconceivable, although the hon. Member for Blackburn may contradict me, that he has consulted the directors of polytechnics or that he has gained a majority of their support for the proposal that local authorities should be consulted according to statute. I say that not out of primitive hostility to local authorities but because polytechnic directors to whom I have spoken realise that their institutions will remain in the middle of local communities. We all know what that implies commercially.
Directors will continue to be rational men and women and to have such contact as is necessary with local authorities to ensure that their policies coincide with local interests. It is indeed rather backward-looking to try to force the PCFC into a duty which directors of newly freed polytechnics will carry out of their own accord.
The hon. Member for Blackburn is wearing a white jacket. He is appropriately attired to take himself, and the amendment, away.

Mr. Ashdown: I had not intended to speak, but——

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: But the hon. Gentleman just could not resist it.

Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman may be right—or perhaps the sheer bankruptcy of the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) and the Minister have induced me to speak.
As has been the case throughout——

Mr. Walden: Where was the hon. Gentleman last week?

Mr. Ashdown: The record will show that I was here last week. The hon. Gentleman's absence and his ignorance on these matters are betrayed by his comment.

Mr. Walden: I wish to pick the hon. Gentleman up on a substantive point. He says that he was here last week. If he had been here last week, he would have heard his colleague contradict him on an absolutely fundamental matter in this Bill—tenure. I wonder what the hon.Gentleman has to say about that——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) will not respond to that point, but will confine his remarks to the amendment.

Mr. Ashdown: The record shows that I was here during that debate.
The Minister and, to an excessive extent, the hon. Member for Buckingham have followed the classic Government technique, which has been employed throughout our proceedings on the Bill. They do not argue the case of the amendment but set up straw men the better to knock them down.
I hold no brief for the amendment, but it suggests nothing more than that reasonable consultation might take place. It does not provide, as the hon. Member for Buckingham said, that consultation must take place. The


Minister suggested that the amendment would impose a duty to consult, but it would merely give discretion to consult.
We have had ample evidence of the fact that the Government have no concern for, or any belief in, consultation. They have shown that from the moment the Bill was introduced. All they are concerned to do is to ram through their ill-thought-out proposals, using the procedures of the House as undemocratically as possible.
The amendment is perfectly reasonable. It suggests merely that, if grants affect staff or the local community, both might be consulted. What an outrageous proposal. The Government have turned their face against reasonable consultation and have sought to introduce a huge structure of compulsion.
In this small and perhaps insignificant debate, the Government's arguments have not been untypical of their approach to the Bill, which has been inappropriate, muddle-headed and wrong.

Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffleld, Hillsborough): The essence of democracy is consultation with the appropriate organisations, so that democracy rules rather than dictatorship. When my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) tabled the amendment, he was not giving voice to an isolated argument late at night. It was the continuation of a huge debate that had occupied the House of Commons for nearly 250 hours in the Chamber and in Committee. That debate has focused on a vast Bill, the contents of which are sufficient for five major Bills. It reflects the haste with which the Prime Minister has forced the Secretary of State to bulldoze the Bill through the House. This short debate reflects the continuation of democracy and consultation.
The Government are feeling slightly drunk with power. They are feeling dizzy with success. That is the result of the Bill being pushed through Parliament against the wishes of many Conservative Members. We are all fearful of what the Bill will mean when it becomes an Act after it receives Royal Assent on Friday. We are worried about the effect that it will have on an education system that took well over 100 years to build in a democratic manner. The system is now to be violated by an elected dictatorship.
The Government's majority is huge, for reasons that will be set out in future history books. An ex-Foreign Secretary—Lord Pym—once referred to the danger of misusing such a huge majority. He was promptly sacked by the Prime Minister. Lord Pym was merely referring to the very dangers to which we are now exposed by the enactment of the Bill. We wish to ensure that the teachers, their unions and the local education authorities—the authorities represent a democratic system that was carefully constructed over a long period—are consulted.
The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) was a member of the Select Committee on Education and Science, but he rarely attended its meetings. He then became a Minister and showed himself to be a failure, as he was as a member of the Select Committee. The hon. Gentleman was kicked out of the Department of Education and Science, and let him face that. He should stop lecturing us about democracy, of which he knows nothing. We, the Opposition, are democrats, and we are struggling for democracy against this appalling Bill.

Mr. Walden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Flannery: I am still on my feet, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Walden: I do not normally fuss about these trivial incidents, but I wish to introduce a small matter of fact. I was not kicked out of the Government; I resigned.

Mr. Flannery: As a matter of fact, the hon. Gentleman is a trivial incident.
That for which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn is asking is surely entirely reasonable. I am sure that the hon. Member for Buckingham and the hon. Lady, who has just entered the Chamber, will allow us to have it.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose——

Mr. Flannery: I apologise to the hon. Lady, who has been in her place throughout the debate. I was referring to the Minister of State.
In the interests of democracy, I hope that Conservative Members will accept the gentle amendment that we have introduced. It merely asks for the proper democratic process to be completed. Surely the Government can easily concede that.
All that we are asking is that those organisations that represent teachers who have spent their lives in the education system should be allowed to participate in a proper democratic consultation process. If there is something wrong with that suggestion, the Secretary of State should say so and explain why. He should also explain why he would not agree to proper consultation with the long-established local education authorities, which are elected.
10.45 pm
When the Secretary of State destroyed the negotiating rights of the teachers—we shall debate that again tomorrow night—his action was condemned by the International Labour Organisation, which is an agency of the United Nations.
The Minister is aware that we are struggling against anti-democratic processes. We want the democratic process of consultation to be undertaken with the proper democratic organisations. The Minister must explain why we are wrong to ask for that. If he does not, we shall be forced to believe that he is not interested in democracy and that neither his party nor the Prime Minister, who kicks Ministers from pillar to post and sacks them if they disagree with her, is interested in democracy.

Ms. Armstrong: We are here again to discuss the Education Reform Bill, having thought that we had finished with it. Why?
We are discussing yet another amendment that has been forced on the Government by the Lords. It is clear that the Lords insisted upon that amendment yesterday because they do not trust the Secretary of State. All his smooth words to the vice-chancellors have not reassured them.
The Lords thought that they would simply have to ratify what we agreed last week, but they have pressed yet: another amendment, which insists on consultation. They do not trust the process that the Secretary of State has set in train regarding the arrangements between the Universities Funding Council, the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council and the universities and polytechnics.
The right hon. Gentleman appears to be much more frightened of vice-chancellors and bishops than he is of any Member of the House.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: He is frightened of the Prime Minister.

Ms. Armstrong: Yes; I suspect that he is aware of the Prime Minister's influence.
The Lords were not happy with the consultation process and felt it necessary to identify particular groups that should be consulted. The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) extends that argument.
In uncharacteristic form, the Minister dealt with my hon. Friend's amendment in a cavalier manner and he re-emphasised the impression held by many of us, namely, that the Government hold teachers and their staff organisations in contempt and that they also have contempt for democratically elected local education authorities.
That is the tragedy of the Government's response tonight. If the Minister had been his normal self when replying to my hon. Friend we would not have been so suspicious. However, because of the manner in which he rejected our amendment, I am concerned that, once more, the message from the Government to teachers and to LEAs is that the Government are sick to death of them and would like them to disappear. We cannot continue an education service without the enthusiastic support of staff at schools and institutions of higher and further education. Our amendment, meek and mild as it is, would reassure them that the Government were not contemptuous of them and were prepared to consult them when appropriate.
We raised the issue of education authorities several times in Committee. We told the Government that the message going out from them was that they had no faith in local education authorities. The Government kept telling us that we had things wrong and that they saw a major role for the authorities in the future of education. But the Government are destroying any attempt to give local education authorities a role in the Bill.
I was surprised by the Minister. I know that he has been seeking ways of providing wider access to higher education. We agreed in Committee that a flexible intermingling of local education authorities, voluntary organisations and the institutions of higher education was essential to opening up access. But again the Government reject the opportunity to provide such co-operation. We can ensure that consultation takes place, if we have a good group of people who continue to be concerned. But, with the last breath of this Bill, the Government are sending out signals yet again to teachers and local education authorities, telling them they are not prepared to write their role into the Bill. That is sad, but is probably a true reflection of the mood of the Government.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The ship is almost in harbour. This is the last little bit with which we have to deal. Tonight's debate has been typical of others that we have had on the Bill.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) got hold of the NUT brief yet again and read it right through. The only original part of his speech was his

calling me drunk with power and dizzy with success: very original. There is much to be proud of in the Bill, and there has been a great deal of success. As the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong) said, we are in the final minutes of debating the Bill in the House. Now it will be discussed, debated and implemented in the country over the coming months and years.
I suppose that this is positively the last appearance by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) as education spokesman for the Liberal party. In Committee and on Report we discovered that he was the master of the passing brief. He immediately mastered and spoke to any brief that passed across his desk——

Mr. Ashdown: The right hon. Gentleman has said that three times now.

Mr. Baker: This is like the Bellman:
What I tell you three times is true.

Mr. Ashdown: I congratulate the Secretary of State on getting that little speech well laid off. This is the third time that he has repeated it almost word for word. I am interested in hearing whether there is any variation by the end.

Mr. Baker: I shall add to it. The one thing that the hon. Gentleman showed in Committee was that he had no profound philosophical view on education, or any ideas.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the Secretary of State will have regard to what I said earlier, and address himself to the amendment. We have had Second and Third Reading debates. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will stick to the amendment.

Mr. Baker: I stand chastened. I was trying to reply to the speech made by the hon. Member for Yeovil and show that it was superficial and characteristic of the hon. Gentleman. The shallowness of the hon. Gentleman runs very deep.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) supported the views expressed by our hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who handled the higher education part of the Bill outstandingly well. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham said that these amendments are inappropriate. I am staggered that the Labour party has suddenly stumbled upon consultation with the unions, because, when the other place debated the amendment yesterday, the Labour party was very content with the amendment as it came back. The Opposition are engaged in last-minute thinking, dredging around to have a little three-quarter-hour debate late at night. The Opposition did not move the amendment and the Labour spokesman, Lord Peston, expressed complete contentment with the amendment moved by the Government.
The first of the two proposals is that the Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council should consult the unions. That would be inappropriate, because the right process of consultation is between the UFC and the PCFC with the universities and the polytechnics.

Mr. Straw: Once again the Secretary of State has not done his homework. Lord Peston did not express complete satisfaction with the amendment, but said only that it was an improvement and better than his worst fears. That is a very different way of putting things. Lord Peston helped me draft these amendments, as did other


peers who had been concerned with the matter. Why are the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary so resistant to the "dangerous" idea of consulting trade unions or local authorities, when in each case the council—the PCFC or the UFC—is given a discretion about whether to hold such consultation? It will take place only when they feel it is appropriate. What is the Secretary of State scared of?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman should read Lord Peston's speech more carefully.

Mr. Straw: I have.

Mr. Baker: So have I. Lord Peston clearly said that he did not have any of these ideas. This was debated yesterday in the House of Lords. He may well have consulted the hon. Gentleman this morning about these amendments, but why did he not put them down in the House of Lords? He did not table them yesterday, so clearly they were a matter of no great concern to him less than 24 hours ago.

Mr. Straw: That is the fault of the Secretary of State, who gave the House of Lords no time whatever to put down any amendments. He knows that the amendment was moved as a manuscript amendment in the House of Lords.

Mr. Baker: The amendment was tabled yesterday morning in the House of Lords, and if Lord Peston had wanted to put down the amendment he had plenty of time to do so. Plainly, he had not thought of it.
I shall now answer the hon. Gentleman's substantive point about consultation with trade unions. At present the UGC does not consult the different unions where it is determining the grants given to universities. That is right. [Interruption.] It is the terms and conditions of the grant. It does not do that now and it would be entirely inappropriate for it to do so. The right relationship is that the UFC, replacing the UGC, should consult the university concerned. That is right, because the university is the employer of the people represented by the unions and it would be constitutionally improper for it to consult the unions behind the backs of their employers.
We have already committed ourselves to setting up a consultative committee for local authorities and the PCFC, and it will deal particularly with the divide in those institutions inside and outside the PCFC. The proposal, like many of the proposals put forward by the Opposition about the Bill, is badly thought out, inappropriate and unnecessary. I invite the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: We have just had an amazing performance by the Secretary of State. He congratulated the Under-Secretary of State, his hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), on the way in which he dealt with the higher education part of the Bill, but did not trust him with a little winding-up speech. Five minutes before the Secretary of State started, he whispered to the Under-Secretary of State that he could do the winding-up speech, by leave of the House. He then snatched the brief away and dealt with it himself. We saw that happen time after time in Committee. We remember how he sat through the account of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) of the national curriculum and then insisted that he had to jump in and save the ship on that occasion.
I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Dartford for his long service in the Department and for enlivening the Committee proceedings. It is a little sad that he should get his cards before the Bill is finished and without any holiday pay. I hope that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) will deal as effectively with school closures as did the hon. Gentleman. It is a difficult task and any hon. Member who had to deal with the hon. Gentleman on the subject would pay tribute to the thoroughness with which he tackled the matter. It is interesting to note that the Secretary of State, in his knockabout performance, did not confirm or deny the fact that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West had been imposed upon him, rather than chosen by him.
However, what is most interesting is why we have had such an ill-tempered debate, in which the Government have protested so much about what they claim to be our incompetence. I assume that, if we were really incompetent, they would not have to draw attention to the fact. Their claims that we are incompetent are an attempt to cover up the real problem, that the Secretary of State has once again had an amendment forced on him that he does not want. As I understand it, there was pressure in the House of Lords for further concessions, and the Lord Chancellor told him that he would have to come up with the amendment. The amendment was produced and he is now pretty peeved about it, and he has shown his peevishness tonight. Instead of setting out to the House clearly how the Secretary of State envisaged the consultation process taking place, he has tried to criticise us for suggesting some of the people who should be included in the consultation process.
This would have been a last opportunity for the Government to clear up how they will co-ordinate funding between the universities body and the public sector body and how far the consultation process will go. It would also have been an opportunity for the Government to throw in the missing part of the equation; they have still not said what they will do about student fees, which are clearly fundamental to those institutions. We realise that the Government have got themselves into a further muddle and have had to delay that matter, but anyone who wants to see a rational process for the funding of those bodies must know what will happen to the fee process.
If the contracts are to be developed, it is important that the proper consultation takes place. Will the Secretary of State tell us now who should be involved in the consultation process? What will be the position of students? Will they be involved in the consultation process? They will be one of the groups most affected. Will the Government talk to the unions representing the employees, whether the professional academics or the non-academics, as they will be considerably affected by any contracts undertaken? It is all right for the Secretary of State to say that it is up to the institutions, but he knows perfectly well that, in all those areas, there are national negotiating bodies, and that any contracts negotiated between the funding bodies and the individual institutions will have to take into account those national contracts that apply in terms of conditions of service.
It seems absolutely logical that the Government should include in their consultation both the academic and the non-academic unions on the campuses. Why on earth should the Government attack the idea of consultation with local education authorities? As my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) has


pointed out, access courses are important. If we are to have co-ordination between further education and higher education, as has happened in many of our polytechnics and colleges of higher education over recent years, it is important that there is a link between the access course and the course that students will pursue later. If the course that they go on to is being funded by the funding body on a contract basis, that must be properly established. It is fundamental that the two funding bodies should carry out consultation.
We must also remember, when the Government so readily denigrate local authorities, just how substantial local authorities are as employers. Many qualified planners, architects and so on go directly into local authority employment. Again, it is logical that in working out contracts for developing courses in such areas there should be consultation with the local authorities.
As so often, the Government have missed the opportunity to use time in the House of Commons to inform people outside how they see the consultation process going along. The Government do not believe in trying to obtain consensus as a result of consultation; they believe in dictatorship. Time after time, in the other place and as a result of all the pressure groups outside, the Government have been persuaded—almost forced—to change their mind and put consultation into the legjslation.
The Opposition believe that the Government should not only have consultation in legislation, but should carry out its spirit and aim for consensus in higher education rather than operate by Government diktat. I ask the House to support the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their amendment in lieu, put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Social Security

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Child Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1988 (S.I. 1988, No. 1227), dated 15thJuly 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th July, be annulled.
It may be for the convenience of hon. Members if I make it clear at the outset that as the regulations that we are debating represent a degree of concession from the harsh legislation inflicted on young people by the Government, we shall not be voting against them. However, we do want to take the opportunity to express not just our reservations, but those of the many groups and organisations who seek to help the vulnerable young, about the implications of what the Government are doing to save, as I recall, some £97 million. I recognise that the Government argue that there are some commensurate costs. However, there is no argument but that a substantial net saving is expected from the legislative cuts that the regulations reflect.
Let us first put on record that the Government have removed the rights to benefit from all 16 and 17-year-olds —not from those who refuse youth training scheme places, not from those who refuse jobs, or any of the other glib excuses that the Government have trotted out over a period of time. Not one 16 or 17-year-old in the country will enjoy the right to benefit when the regulations are approved, as I presume they will be, this evening. But the Government will allow some exceptions to that general deprivation, exceptions which, although welcome, are inadequate in their scope and degree.
We do not query the exemptions that the Government are allowing, but we question how they will work, who will not benefit and how the regulations fit into the general scope of the new social security scheme—a point with which I should like to begin.
Although the age of majority is now 18, not 21, the Government are setting a new age of majority for those forced by circumstances to depend on benefit and setting it at 25. The imposition of a junior rate of benefit below that age, and, still more, its consequential effects on an aligned scheme of housing benefit, has saved the Government, again from memory, £150 million to £200 million.
The attitude that sets that as a new age of majority permeates a wide range of social security law. The assumption seems now to be that all under-25s live at home in a happy and supportive family who welcome their presence and, with the financial and other resources, accept without any serious difficulty their continuing, indeed their permanent, presence up to the age of 25 in their childhood home.
It seems to be only with the utmost reluctance that the Government concede that there are any exceptions to that rosy picture and, with still more reluctance, accept any responsibility to help those for whom that picture is outside their experience—a particularly dangerous assumption when dealing with those aged 16 or 17.
The Government seem to be saying—in this I am following their advice and former slogan of looking at the action and not the words—that if those are not the family circumstances of the young, they should be, and it is no concern of the Government that they are not. It is easy to


say that there ought not to be young people who are homeless, jobless and destitute wandering the streets—we could all agree with that—but there are, and the Government's policies and lack of recognition of the wider scope of the regulations make matters worse.
During the debates earlier this year on the Social Security Bill, of which these are consequential regulations, we asked what would happen to young people receiving income support but who had to wait two weeks. We asked how they were to make £150 bed-and-breakfast payments in London, for example, not because that represented the best type of lodgings for young people, but because it offered the only chance of a bed without strings that most of them would have. The administrative convenience of paying income support in that way alone causes problems for 16 and 17-year-olds in particular.
Recently, the Minister suggested to concerned organisations that payment could be made on a daily basis, enabling people to book into a hotel. However, experience shows that that arrangement is not acceptable to the people running such establishments, and it is not accepted. The Minister also suggested that those starting to receive income support normally already have a regular income, so the payment of income support in arrears does not matter and is simply part of the general pattern of payment in arrears. Again, that is not likely to apply to 16 and 17-year-olds in particular, who may have just left home.
The relationship between benefit and the YTS makes matters even worse. Those organisations which in the past have sought, with some difficulty, to help the young homeless must try to find them not just a bed but a job or a training place if they are to enjoy any income at all. Without the one, they probably will not get the other, and they may be caught in a vicious spiral of despair and homelessness. Now that such young people have no right to income support, and none to an urgent needs payment —which, basically, does not exist anyway—all that they could possibly be offered, as has been suggested, is a crisis loan. However, the people with whom these regulations deal will not be offered a crisis loan because the young, homeless or not, have a low priority need under the Government's guidelines for crisis or any other loans.
Even if the young were not rated as having a low priority need, in the case of the Westminster office, for example, officers took one look at the needs payments made to the young homeless last year and realised that if crisis loans were made to the same people this year, there would be no social funds left for any other claimants.
When one considers the framing of the regulations and the exceptions they embody, one returns again and again to the basic theme that the Government appear to be adopting towards the young—that they should not be homeless or jobless. If they are, what then? To hell with them? That may be an all-too-accurate description of the fate that will befall the most vulnerable. How can suitable or any YTS places be found, and how fast? If they can be found at all, it will take time. Meanwhile, how are those young people to live and eat? How are they to keep clean so that they may impress a prospective employer?
The Government's rules are not merely unjust; they are impracticable. During our debates on the Social Security Bill, we asked Ministers what would happen if it proved impossible to find enough YTS places for all 16 and 17-year-olds who might need them by September. The Minister of State said that that was a matter for the

Department of Employment, and it had assured him that everything would be all right. The Under-Secretary of State, who, mercifully for him, has now left that slot, was not so wise. He kept saying that it would not happen. Over and over again, the hon. Gentleman, who now occupies high office in the Ministry of Transport, assured the House that it would not happen.
I have been asked to bring to the Minister of State's attention the situation in Cleveland, using figures from my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam), who, sadly, is unable to be present. In Cleveland, there are currently on the books 750 pre-1988 school leavers for whom one YTS place is available; there are a further 250 Easter school leavers for whom no YTS place is available; and there are, of course, this summer's school leavers still to come. How are all those extra YTS places to be magicked out of thin air between now and September? If they are magicked out of thin air, we are still confronted by the anxiety that was most forcibly expressed in Committee—that the number of places, not in any sense the quality, will take precedence. That is likely to lead to a mismatch that is even greater than usual between the opportunities that should be available and are right for the individuals involved and those into which they are being forced because otherwise they will not receive benefit. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar has asked me to seek confirmation from the Minister that if our fears turn out to be justified—if, by September, there are not enough places, whether it be in Cleveland or elsewhere—he will make a commitment to consider extending the bridging allowance beyond the eight weeks for which it could now be on offer.
The regulations offer a possible entitlement to income support for a young person who has left home because of abuse. I suppose we should say, "Thank God for small mercies." But how is that to be judged? Will there be specially trained officers, skilled at dealing with an emotionally explosive situation? Or will the poor DSS counter clerk be told to demand proof—and what kind of proof—or simply to reject most such claims? Those problems, too, arise directly from the decision to remove all right to benefit.
There seem to be anomalies of timing. The framing of the regulations suggests that even young people whom the Government accept cannot live at home—because they have no home, have been kicked out of the home or have been abused in it—will have the limited protection that is offered withdrawn after the child benefit extension period. In other words, those identified by the Government as being at risk will get three to four months' grace to find a YTS place, and after that they will have no rights.

Ms. Joyce Quin: Does my hon. Friend agree that the regulations carry a risk of making the problem of homelessness in London even greater, particularly for young people who are attracted to London from the north and other places where unemployment is high because they think that there is a chance of a job, but who will find it almost impossible to get accommodation or to survive because of the lack of benefit? The Government do not seem to have taken that problem into account.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right. The problem is causing great anxiety, and the more pressure that the Government put on young people, as they are doing in the


legislation and the regulations that flow from it, to be in a job or a YTS place, the more likely it is that those who see little chance of such a prospect in their own area will travel to places where they have been told there is a better opportunity and render themselves vulnerable.
The regulations seem to make no allowance for those who, having had the right to benefit in the family from the child benefit extension period, become homeless after that time. They may crack after years of abuse in February rather than in October. The regulations seem to have been framed for the administrative convenience of the Department rather than to take account of those whose life experience does not fit precisely within the dates for which they allow.
I suspect that the Minister's answer will be that such cases could be met by the provision that the Secretary of State is able to recognise cases of severe hardship. The difficulty that we see is that that provision has existed in the board and lodging regulations, and we have noted—as have those who deal with these matters—that the Secretary of State, like every Secretary of State, seems to have extreme difficulty in recognising such cases. Few cases which most of us would think should qualify get past the Secretary of State. In any event, there is no proper appeal procedure for cases put to headquarters—to the Secretary of State—to decide whether there is severe hardship. Only the Secretary of State or his departmental officers have the right to exercise discretion. There is no scope for the judicial consideration of decisions. That is arbitrary in the extreme.
The problem of young people who are abused at home is an emotional and difficult one, but what about another judgment that is less emotionally fraught—whether somebody who is caught by the regulations is over 18? That is likely to occur in the kind of cases that my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) identified, when young people leave home and seek jobs or training opportunities elsewhere.
Will the Department accept birth certificates? They have sometimes refused to accept that evidence. Is the ludicrous guidance that has been used in the past still to apply: that other proof should be sought, such as the family Bible? The people who write this sort of stuff live in another world. How many families ever had a family Bible? How many families have a family Bible now? Is it likely that when young people aged 18 leave home they will think to shove the family Bible into their case? Even if they had, would it survive the sleeping rough, which is the only option that the Government offer, until they can prove that they qualify for benefit?
The Minister knows that the Department is coming under heavy pressure to look afresh at the implications for the homeless of all these questions, including the payment of income support in arrears and the possible extension of benefit to young people who are estranged from their parents and involved in resettlement programmes. The long experience of organisations that have tried to help this most vulnerable group of young people leads them to believe that this further additional burden will create considerable problems. Young people will be required to find a job or a YTS place before they can qualify for a legitimate income. I ask the Minister seriously to consider the case that is being put to him.
I suspect that in this debate we shall concentrate most on vulnerable young people who are being placed seriously at risk by the harshness of the Government's policies. We ought to put on record the concern that is felt by all who know about and understand what the Government are doing and the danger of their approach to this problem. I have no doubt that the Minister of State will refer to the need to offer proper choices to the young, but when we consider the changes that the Government are making to the rights to benefit and to benefit entitlement we have to conclude that in their heart they know that they are not offering proper choices to young people. They are seeking to corral and coerce the young into fitting into an unsuitable system.
Sixteen and 17-year-olds sometimes come to the conclusion that the world is against them. It is a great pity that the Government seem to be working hard to confirm that view. The removal of starter credits is regarded as a levelling down, as this Government always do. There is a real difference between the encouragement and support of young people to exercise sensible choices that will provide them with good opportunities and compulsion, which is all that the Government seem to be prepared to offer.
The Opposition fear that the Government are creating a great deal of resentment and that they are increasing the lack of a sense of responsibility and of a place in society, as well as removing the last life-line from the young, who are in the most desperate need. I beg the Government to monitor carefully the development of their policies for young people and, most urgently, to heed the advice that is being given to them from the organisations that deal, especially in the big cities, with the vulnerable young. They must not wait until well publicised, personal tragedies occur among the young homeless before they take action.

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I welcome the recognition by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) of the fact that the application of the regulations will be largely beneficial, although they are part of the implementation of a policy with which the Opposition profoundly disagree. Therefore, the Opposition will not seek to divide the House.
The point of principle that forms the background to the debate was settled in Committee and during the other stages of debate on the Social Security Act 1988. We took the view that able-bodied young people capable of work and/or training should not be given the option of moving from full-time education to benefit. Whatever doubts the Opposition may have about the detailed application of the provisions, the vast majority of people in this country will agree with that fundamental principle. I can think of nothing more corrupting than offering young people generally the option of moving straight from full-time education to benefit.
Earl's Court is in my constituency, in the centre of London. I know of some of the problems that have arisen because young people have had the option of coming to London and claiming benefit. They have been subjected to all the temptations and problems of living in the area. I do not want to see——

Mrs. Beckett: With great respect, the Minister has used a very dangerous word. He said that he could think of nothing more "corrupting" than young people being


tempted to come to London and claim benefit straight away. I recognise the case that he is putting, although I know of no evidence to support the argument that young people come to London because they can get benefit. They tend to come to London either because of the bright lights syndrome or because they hope that they will get a job or training place.
I can think of something more corrupting than being drawn to London by the promise, thought or offer of benefit; young people may come to London in the hope of finding better prospects here but then find that they have no income at all because the Government have withdrawn their right. That is the most corrupting option of all.

Mr. Scott: I had intended to deal with that rather later. We need to strike a balance in this matter. Of course, I want to ensure that young people who are in genuine need have proper protection through the social security system and I shall go on to explain why I believe that the regulations will meet that requirement. But the hon. Member for Derby, South, for whom I have considerable respect, does not seem to understand the temptations for those who believe that they can come to London and establish themselves, with semi-independent status, on the benefit system and without the prospect of a job.
I know that many young people come here wanting a job or a training place which may not be available to them elsewhere, but many come on spec, thinking that when they get to London everything will be all right and that they can sustain themselves through the benefit system. Almost always that dream ends in tears, and I have known many tragic circumstances to arise from that in my own constituency of Chelsea.

Ms. Quin: Does not the Minister recognise the contradiction in the Government's policy? They urge young people to show initiative and to move from one area of the country to another to find work, yet when young people reach the place where the work is available, they do not have the financial wherewithal to become established. They have to wait until their first pay packet comes in, and it is difficult for them to find accommodation that they can afford.

Mr. Scott: The hon. Lady's point centres on the problem of the payment of benefit in arrears when young people come to London. Again, we need to strike a balance. People may be encouraged to up sticks, leave their own homes and come to London on a speculative basis in the hope that they will get jobs and that they can live on benefit if they do not, and I have talked about all the dangers inherent in that.
Having said that, although we hear much about young people coming to London and failing to find accommodation, we still have a considerable number of vacant spaces in the resettlement units in central London each night. I am told that many voluntary organisations in central London also have vacant beds at night, and young people could go there if they wished to do so. Our local offices in central London, which deal mainly with the transient population here, have reported not an increase but a decrease in the numbers of those seeking help since the implementation of the reforms on 11 April.

Mr. John McWilliant: That is not our information; our information is that many young people are coming to London, and that they seek help from those

organisations that can give them help in the short term. In the long term, however, finding permanent accommoda-tion—somewhere that they can describe as their abode —is a real problem now that the two weeks' benefit is being denied them until they get here.

Mr. Scott: I understand that, but at the moment the evidence is that there is a decrease rather than an increase in demand. There is also evidence that, as those who provide accommodation for young people realise that they will be paid in arrears and as those young people give them a piece of paper which states that the benefit will be payable, albeit in arrears, landlords are adjusting to that situation.
Having said that, I want to find out the truth. Therefore, I have asked officials in my Department to meet the organisations concerned, and to discuss with them the evidence that they have, which may conflict with that which the Department is receiving. As an hon. Member representing a constituency in central London, as well as bearing my ministerial responsibilities, I am concerned to find out the facts. I have asked for that survey and those discussions to take place, and when I have the results, I shall review the situation and consider what, if anything, needs to be done. I believe in my heart that we should be wary of encouraging young people to come to London on the speculative chance that they may be able to obtain accommodation and jobs.
The hon. Member for Derby, South mentioned YTS opportunities. At the end of June, there were 162,000 unfilled places on that scheme. I cannot deal specifically with Cleveland tonight, but it is quite clear that throughout the country there are a considerable number of unfilled places on the scheme. Therefore, I see no difficulty about us being able to fulfil the commitment given by my hon. Friend the former Under-Secretary of State when we discussed these matters in Committee.
Whatever the hon. Lady says, the net expenditure— that is, the withdrawal of benefit from 16 and 17-year-olds unless they are prepared to take a place on YTS and the cost of providing places on YTS programmes—means that there will be a net cost, not a net saving, to the Exchequer. Therefore, we are investing in young people, not making overall savings at their expense.
In simple terms, we believe that it is neither necessary nor healthy for young people to see dependence on state benefits as the natural step to take after leaving school. I am sure that the vast majority of hon. Members agree with that. I shall not repeat the manifesto commitment, except to say that the withdrawal of benefit is closely linked to the guarantee of a high-quality training place for every school leaver under 18 who wants one. I believe that, as the scheme develops, we shall convince even the sceptics on the Opposition Benches of the merits of the training for young people that we shall provide. We all know that the training allowance that they will receive will be substantially in excess of anything that they could get on income support.
However, we appreciate that the burden of the regulations centres on the particular aspect that there are some young people who do not fit into the general pattern and who require special protection. The regulations deal primarily with the situation in which benefits will remain available to young people over the age of 16 when the new arrangements take effect on 12 September.
We have sought to identify two groups for whom income support will remain available. There are those who


are not required to be available for work or training, such as lone parents, the severely disabled and the registered blind. They will still be able to claim income support at all times. Then there are those who are required to be available for work or training, but may have to leave home because of physical or sexual abuse, broken homes, and so on. They will be entitled to benefit for a short period while they are considering the work or YTS opportunities that are available to them.
The categories of young people who are entitled to support can be found in the schedule to the regulations. All hon. Members will agree that we have gone to not inconsiderable lengths to try to identify as precisely as we can the categories of young people who are most in need. I am sure that, if we trawl through, it will be possible to identify smaller groups who do not fit tidily into the categories. My answer to that is that we have always recognised that it would not be possible to regulate for every conceivable circumstance.
Therefore, we have expressly taken power under the Social Security Act 1988 so that, when a person under 18 is not entitled to income support and it appears that he or she would suffer severe hardship unless benefit is paid, the Secretary of State may direct that the young person should be so entitled. That is an important and significant fallback to protect any who may fall outside the regulations, however much we have tried to identify categories that may need that help.
In short, the vast majority of people in this country will applaud our initiative in seeking to deprive 16 and 17-year-old, able-bodied people who are capable of work or of taking a training place of the opportunity to go directly on to state benefits. At the same time, we shall guarantee a place on the YTS for those who can take their part. We shall have the protection for the most vulnerable groups in the way that I have described. I commend the regulations to the House.

Question put and negatived.

PETITIONS

Gipsy Site (South Woodham Ferrers)

Dr. Michael Clark: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I present a petition
To the Honourable Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The humble Petition of the residents of South Woodham Ferrers and the surrounding area.
The petitioners state that they are opposed to the creation of a gipsy encampment on the old concrete batching plant in South Woodham Ferrers. They point out that, in 1974, Essex county council promised that the site would be public open space. In 1984, it was designated as within the coastal protection belt, with the most stringent development restrictions placed upon it. Developments that adversely affect the character of that rural and open area are not permitted.
The residents of South Woodham Ferrers are, and have been since the new town was developed, prevented by restrictive covenants from parking caravans on their own property, yet there is now a proposal to bring in caravans belonging to strangers from outside the area and allow them to park legally in the town where other caravans are prohibited.
The petitioners point out that the new town, which is built on a riverside and advertised as a rural country town with a riverside nature and a rural environment, will be spoilt by bringing a gipsy site into the town.
The petition is signed by 315 residents of the town. It is backed up by another substantial petition, with over 5,000 signatures on it, being more than half the adult population of the town of South Woodham Ferrers. The petition concludes:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House do urge the … Secretary of State for the Environment to intervene in the proposal by Essex County Council, to locate a gypsy site within or within proximity to South Woodham Ferrers. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &amp;c.

I beg leave to present the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Maternity Unit (Moray)

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: It is with pride in my constituents and in humility as their elected representative that I tonight present to the House a petition of 12,888 signatures collected in just a fortnight supporting the call for a specialist maternity unit in Moray. The petition reads as follows:
That the decision of Grampian Health Board taken on 7 April 1988 is against the interests and welfare of our residents and that there are clear medical, social and economic reasons for the establishment of a full obstetric and gynaecological unit in Moray. Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will use its influence to persuade the Secretary of State for Scotland to instruct Grampian Health Board to reopen discussions on a specialist obstetric and gynaecological unit in Moray and further to carry out a feasibility study on the provision of such a unit. We further petition that the Secretary of State investigate the possibility of financial provision to enable the unit to be established.
To emphasise the importance of this matter, I shall mention briefly a case that occurred in my constituency


last weekend. A young mother who went into early labour in Elgin had to undergo a caesarean section by a doctor who had no delivery experience. The flying squad in Aberdeen, about 70 miles distant, said the emergency was too acute for transfer, which would require several hours. As a result, my constituent was delivered of twin girls without the mandatory attendance of an obstetrician or paediatrician.
Fortunately, the skills of the doctor in attendance prevented a tragedy from occurring, but it can only be a matter of time before a tragedy does occur, a point emphasised by the surgeon. We in Moray do not want such tragedies to happen and we seek the basic right of access to a specialist unit.
The petition concludes:
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
We ask the House to give serious consideration to this matter.

To lie upon the Table.

Opencast Mineworkers (Gateshead)

Ms. Joyce Quin: I beg to ask leave to present a petition on behalf of opencast workers employed at the Swalwell disposal point in Gateshead. These workers are to be relocated and many will, as a result, lose their jobs.
The petition states that the workers feel unfairly discriminated against, as they do not receive retraining or redundancy payments at anything like the levels of their colleagues who are classified as deep miners and who work for British Coal, even though the same levy is imposed on the coal with which both sector workers deal.
They feel that their situation is unique, as, unlike many opencast sites, theirs has been closed not because there is no longer a market for their coal but because the site has been acquired for another purpose.
The petition concludes:
Wherefore, your petitioners pray that your honourable House will be sympathetic to our unique situation and press Her Majesty's Government to invoke the Treaty of Paris to enable us to be fairly and justly compensated.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. John McWilliam: I present on behalf of my constituents a petition in exactly the same terms as that presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin). Bearing in mind that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) will shortly initiate an important Adjournment debate on the subject of opencast mines, I will not detain the House by reading the terms of the petition.

Settle-Carlisle Railway

Mr. Bob Cryer: I present a petition against the closure of the Settle-Carlisle railway on a date which is before the closure date when the TUCC can hear objections on the grounds of hardship. I hope and believe that this will be the first of many more petitions on this subject.
I and the petitioners believe that closure would be an act of organised vandalism. The signatures include people on a train hauled by the "Sir Nigel Gresley", which you will vividly recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was built in Doncaster and is a fine engine named after the chief mechanical engineer of the London and North Eastern Railway.
The petition is also signed by people on the train on the Worth valley railway, who know how to run railways and know that a private preservation scheme for the Settle-Carlisle line is, to say the least, unworkable and unlikely. It is also signed by ordinary people from all over the country who treasure the railway, people who live near the line who would face grave hardship if it was closed, and people who love the line and the access that it provides to the Yorkshire Dales.
The petition reads:
The humble petition of the supporters of the Settle-Carlisle railway sheweth that the outstandingly beautiful and historic Settle-Carlisle railway provides an essential transport system for people who live in the area, for people wishing to visit the area, for people travelling betvveen the midlands, Yorkshire and Scotland, for British Rail to use as a diversionary route, for British Rail to use as a potentially important freight route and for hundreds of thousands of people who wish to enjoy the scenery near the line, and the engineering heritage of the line itself. Wherefore, your petitioners pray that the Settle-Carlisle railway and the associated Blackburn-Hellifield railway will be retained as an integral part of the national railway network.

To lie upon the Table.

Opencast Mines

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Mr. Win Griffiths: The subject of this debate will be familiar to the Minister as it has for at least a decade been the subject of correspondence and debate in the House and the European Parliament. It relates to the application by successive Governments of article 56.2(b) of the treaty of Paris.
The budget of the European Coal and Steel Community is derived almost entirely from production levies on coal and steel. Every year since 1981 more than £1 million has been levied from opencast coal production, culminating last year in £1,902,000 out of £13,008,000 being paid by the Government in coal levies.
One of the purposes of the money is to contribute to eventualities described in article 56.2(b) thus:
If fundamental changes, not directly connected with the establishment of the common market, in market conditions for the coal or the steel industry should compel some undertakings permanently to discontinue, curtail or change their activities, the High Authority, on application by the Governments concerned:…

(b) may provide non-repayable aid towards:

—the payment of tideover allowances …
—the payment of resettlement allowances to workers;
—the financing of vocational retraining for workers having to change their employment."
Because of the failure of successive Governments to apply article 56.2(b), opencast workers have been excluded from the possibility of the Commission deciding whether any redundancy meets the requirements of article 56.2(b) and is eligible for some or all of the aids in it.
I first became involved in the quest for justice for redundant opencast workers at the beginning of 1981 as the Member of the European Parliament for South Wales. In response to my inquiry, the Director-General of Employment and Social Affairs, Mr. J. Degimbe, wrote on 9Marchl981:
The Commission will participate financially in the aids for all redundant coal miners, whether they be from Deep-mines or Open-cast mines, whenever article 56.2(b) of the ECSC Treaty is applicable.
After unsatisfactory correspondence with the Department of Energy over several years, I tabled a question in November 1983 to the Commission. My purpose was to get on the record the view expressed earlier by Director-General Degimbe. My question read:
As far as the Commission is concerned, would there be any objection if the British Government brought opencast workers—on whose production the ECSC levy is paid—into the scheme of benefits that can be claimed by the UK Government, under the Treaty of Paris, when coal workers are made redundant?
The Commission's reply, by Commissioner Ivor Richard, on 27 February 1984, read:
If the United Kingdom Government revised their policy towards redundancies in the opencast mining sector, the Commission would have no objection in principle to granting aid under Article 562(b) of the ECSC Treaty for the workers concerned. The manner in which this could be done would be a matter for discussion with the United Kingdom authorities. In order for the workers to qualify, however, redundancy would need to arise from fundamental changes in market conditions for the coal-mining industry which compelled the undertaking concerned permanently to discontinue, curtail or

change its activities. In practice, the Commission believes that this Treaty requirement is unlikely to be met in the majority of cases arising in opencast coal mining.
The Commission's position is clear: it will consider any application put forward by the British Government for redundant opencast workers. The British Government, however, are not disposed to do so.
To test further the powers of the Commission to act on the Government's failure to implement in full the provisions of article 56.2(b) for all workers involved in the production of coal, on which the levy was paid, two redundant opencast workers, Mr. V. E. Williams and Mr. P. Shepherd, petitioned the European Parliament in December 1984 to request the Commission
to set in train the steps needed for Opencast Coal Production Workers to have the opportunity of claiming benefits under Article 562(b) of the Treaty of Paris when redundancies arise in the industry.
The Commission's reply was discouraging. Part of it read:
There is indeed no provision of the Treaty which requires a Member State to grant special aid to workers affected by discontinuance or curtailment of activities in an ECSC undertaking or to apply for non-payable aid in respect of these workers under 562(b).
There is, therefore, no basis on which the Commission could unilaterally grant readaptation aids to opencast coal miners neither could it begin infringement proceedings against the United Kingdom Government for not granting such benefits.
However, the Commission reiterated its previous position. It stated:
In principle it makes no distinction between opencast coal workers and deep mine (including face) workers for the purposes of Article 562(b) of the ECSC Treaty.
The reply continued:
In order to verify whether in specific cases this basic eligibility condition is fulfilled, the Commission must rely on information presented by the Member State which under the Treaty is the only entity empowered to submit an application for aid … Until now the United Kingdom Government has not submitted to the Commission any such case concerning opencast coal workers.
That leaves us with the important principle that all workers involved in the production of coal which is levied for the ECSC budget should have the right, if made redundant, to receive ECSC benefits under article 56.2(b) if eligible. The plain truth is that the Government have arbitrarily barred opencast workers who have been made redundant from any possibility of access to ECSC benefits. In the past the Government have argued that opencast work is akin to civil engineering, has nothing in common with deep mining, and that opencast workers are, according to a former Secretary of State for Energy, who is now the Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker)—I quote from his letter to me on 8 October 1983—
accustomed to the need to move to another site, or find alternative employment, at fairly frequent intervals.
They are not specified in the treaty of Paris as criteria for non-eligibility. The decision to exclude opencast workers is morally and legally unacceptable.
Given that provision has been made in British legislation for deep miners, whose coal production is levied to be eligible for ECSC benefit—when the conditions of their redundancy meet the requirement of article 56.2(b) —there should also be provision for opencast workers whose coal production is levied to be eligible when the conditions of their redundancy meet the criteria of article 56.2(b).
In the past the Government have argued that opencast mine redundancies do not meet the requirement of article


56.2(b) that an undertaking must have had to discontinue permanently, curtail or change its activities as a result of fundamental changes in market conditions in the coal industry. What may have been true in the 1970s is not true of the 1980s. In 1983 workers in my constituency at the Parc Slip site, Cefn Cribwr—incidentally, that is but a field away from my back garden—were given redundancy notices on which the reason for their redundancies was declared to be a reduction in the demand for coal. Those redundancies were permanent, as has been the drop in demand for coal.
More recently, in October 1986, the Llanilid east site, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), was closed with the loss of 240 jobs. British Coal also failed to extend the site to Llanilid west. Although the inspector appointed to hear the planning appeal for that site stated:
On the balance of probabilities, the proposed operations would be profitable,
in paragraph 265 he also said:
There is evidence to support a reduced consumption of coking coal by BSC.
In paragraph 266 he said:
I can see no justification for working Llanilid west on the basis of its coking coal content either in terms of the need to satisfy a particular market requirement or its economic value in the context of its intended purpose.
Plainly, the planning appeal inspector felt that the state of the market did not justify the continuation of work at the Llanilid site, which would have enabled 240 men to continue in employment. Despite satisfying ECSC criteria, those men cannot be eligible for ECSC benefits because the Government have not enacted a scheme to enable application to be made under the provisons of article 56.2(b) of the treaty of Paris.
My hon. Friends the Members for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) and for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) have already told us how opencast workers in their constituencies have been similarly affected by unforeseen changes. The Government's failure to provide such a scheme discriminates against opencast workers, whose coal production is levied in exactly the same way as deep miners.
The Secretary of State for Energy has the power to rectify that anomaly by establishing a scheme that is specifically designed for opencast workers. I hope that tonight the Minister will declare himself to be on the side of justice and that he will end the unjustifiable, illegal and immoral discrimination against redundant opencast mineworkers.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on raising an issue which he has pursued with my Department on several occasions over at least eight years. I congratulate him on his persistence. He will not, I suspect, be surprised if, similarly, my response tonight has a familiar ring to him.
Article 56.2(b) of the treaty of Paris, which he quoted, which established the European Coal and Steel Community, states that
if fundamental changes … in market conditions for the coal or steel industry should compel some undertakings permanently to discontinue, curtail or change their activities, the High Authority,
—which is now the European Commission—

on application by the Governments concerned … may provide non-repayable aid.
Certain costs associated with a reduction in labour requirements towards which this aid may be given are then listed. The treaty goes on to say that
the High Authority shall make the provision of non-repayable aid conditional upon payment by the State concerned of a special contribution of not less than the amount of that aid".
As part of the coal industry, opencast mining is in principle covered by article 56.2(b), and if the conditions set out in the article were met it would be possible for the Commission to grant readaptation aid. However, it is clear that these conditions are not met, for two main reasons, one of which the hon. Member touched on.
First, the Government have no special scheme for redundancy or associated payments to workers at opencast sites. Such a scheme would have to be introduced, requiring legislation, before the Commission could make a contribution under article 56.2(b). Such a scheme, were it introduced, would of course be anomalous. It would single out for exceptional treatment a particular group of employees the nature of whose work was similar to that of many others employed in civil engineering and aggregate extraction industries. That is a perfectly fair comparison.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that, in other member states, opencast iron ore miners are eligible for ECSC benefits, and that the manner of their operations is exactly the same as that of opencast workers in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Spicer: I am not familiar with iron ore extraction in other countries; but I am familiar with the opencast industry. One of its characteristics—this may or may not be true of the iron ore industry in other countries—is that it is a productive, efficient and thriving industry. That comes into consideration of this matter.
To return to my point about comparable industries, employees in those industries typically need to move from site to site, or to find alternative employment, at fairly frequent intervals, as the jobs that they are doing come to completion. Redundancy payments to all these workers must, of course, conform to the requirements of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978; but there is no justification for incurring the substantial extra public expenditure that a special publicly funded scheme for opencast workers would involve.

Ms. Joyce Quin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that opencast workers, who may work alongside other workers employed by British Coal—that was the case in my constituency—are in an anomalous position? A levy is paid on the coal on which they work, yet, oddly, only one of those two groups receives any advantage from that levy. In the case I mentioned when I read out my petition, the opencast site had not come to the end of its useful life. It was closed for a completely different reason, which would meet the criteria that the Minister talked about before.

Mr. Spicer: The hon. Lady raises the matter of the levy, and I shall deal with that in a moment. On the question of conditions that might apply, I must stick to the point that this is a thriving industry and we cannot see any specific reason for singling it out for the public funding that would be required to make it conform to ECSC requirements.
The possibility of funds from the ECSC to offset part of the expenditure is no justification, even supposing that opencast workers met the other conditions for aid that are set out in article 56.2(b).
It is highly unlikely that those further conditions would be met in the large majority of opencast sites. Perhaps that addresses the specific points raised. Closure of opencast sites is usually necessary because there are overriding environmental or planning objections to further extraction. Opposition Members are proposing, on the basis of what I suspect they might agree are limited cases, the introduction of a substantial and anomalous public subsidy for an industry that, by and large, is thriving.
Given the present state of the opencast industry, it would be hard to establish that there had been fundamental changes in market conditions requiring permanent discontinuation, curtailment, or changes of activities. The hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) said that it was inequitable that ECSC funds were raised by a levy on coal production, including opencast coal, but that the benefits of readaptation aid did not extend to opencast coal workers. This point is based on at least three misconceptions.
First, no levy is paid by the contractors operating at opencast sites. They provide the vast majority of the work force and are responsible for redundancy payments. The levy on opencast production is paid by British Coal as the licensor. Secondly, there is no direct link between levy payments and readaptation aid. The coal production levy finances a variety of ECSC expenditures, of which readaptation aid is only one. Finally, and perhaps fundamentally, opencast mining is a thriving, prosperous industry for which ECSC readaptation aid is hardly appropriate.

Mr. John McWilliam: Perhaps the Minister has not been told by his officials that some of those opencast mining companies are financially effective because they are taking opencast coal and running it through private drift mines that they own. They claim the levy on the opencast coal as if it were drift mine coal. If the Minister is so innocent that he does not know about the rip off that is taking place in the industry, he should not be on the Front Bench.

Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman makes strong allegations.

Mr. McWilliam: They are accurate.

Mr. Spicer: If the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about those allegations, perhaps he will write to me, giving specific examples, so that I may consider them. However, we are talking not about drift mining, but about opencast mining. The hon. Gentleman is proposing specific public funding arrangements for an industry which, by and large, is thriving. If he thinks about the matter carefully, he will see that he and his hon. Friends are putting forward a peculiar proposition.

Mr. McWilliam: If the Minister were to study the activities of R and A Young in the north-east, and if his officials and the Inland Revenue were to operate properly, he would discover that opencast coal is being run through drift mines as if it were drift-mined coal.

Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman has made his allegations under privilege of the House of Commons and no doubt they will be seen by other people. I see no prospect of the opencast coal industry in the United Kingdom ever justifying the kind of special and expensive measures that were taken to deal with the social consequences of the closure of high-cost deep mines. They were extraordinarily generous measures that the state funded because of the restructuring of the industry, but they are totally inapplicable to and inappropriate for an industry which, by all acknowledgements, is thriving. British Coal is currently making £240 million a year profit in that industry.

Mr. McWilliam: Crooks.

Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman shouts "Crooks", but this is a thriving industry for which he is implicitly demanding further public funds simply on the basis that the deep mine industry is undergoing considerable and radical restructuring to the great benefit, ultimately, of that industry. We believe it is appropriate that public funds on a massive scale should have been applied to that industry to deal with redundancies.
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Gateshead, East will agree with me, as they have heard these arguments before and have not agreed with them in the past, but I hope that they will, after this useful and interesting debate, at least acknowledge that there are two different sets of circumstances. Because the word "coal" appears in the titles does not mean that it is appropriate to apply public funding to one industry just because the other is going through a massive restructuring. On that basis, I rest the Government's case.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Twelve o'clock.